(Part 1 in this thread)
_____


In keeping with the secret (but now-abandoned due to bad publicity) LDS death oaths--with their related signs, tokens and chantings--solemnly play-acted out by costumed Mormons behind their tightly-closed temple doors, it's time to chop off the head of Mormonism's meat-headed mega-myth of a divinely-decreed "Thanksgiving" Turkey Day.

First, however, some hobbled gobble cast as saintly spin. The Mormon Church and its leading, light-skinned "lights" would have you believe that God was behind the Pilgrims, the Puritans and the peopling of America . Some kooky quotes in that regard:

--White-Skinned Colonizers (Christopher Columbus, Puritans, Pilgrims) and America:

""It is assuring to know that this Nation [the United States f America] has a prophetic history, that all of the great events that have transpired here, including the coming of Columbus, the Pilgrim Fathers and the war for independence, were foreseen by ancient prophets.

"It was predicted that those who came to this great land would prosper here, that they would humble themselves before the Almighty, that the power of God would be with them and that this national would move forward to its great destiny.

"When they came, they truly came with that spirit of humility. They were God-fearing, humble people. [Governor William] Bradford records in the official record about those early arrivals on these shores, 'Being thus arrived in good harbor and brought to safe land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of Heaven.' That was their first official act.

"The impelling force in their hears was a love for the baic ideals and principles which were a part of their lives. In fact, these were dearer to them than life itself--these basic principles of freedom, industry, thrift, decency, honor and the love of God. " (Ezra Taft Benson, "The Red Carpet: Socialism and the Royal Road to Communism" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Hawkes Publishing, Inc., 1962], p. 107)

"America as a nation has been built on prayer. It has a spiritual foundation, a prophetic history [as declared by Bradford] [w]hen the God-fearing Pilgrims arrived in the Western Hemisphere." (Ezra Taft Benson, "God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1975], p. 115)


--The BOook of Mormon Sets The Turkey-Day Table

"Ancient Prophet Foresees American Founding. . . .

"'And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles [Columbus]who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land [America].

"'And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles 9Puritans and Pilgrims]; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

"'And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that iw as upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.
'
"And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that thy were white, and exceeding fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

"'And it came to bass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves fore the Lord, and the power of the Lord was with them. . . .

"'And I, Nephi, behold that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

"'And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land.' . . .

" . . . At the proper time, God inspired Columbus to overcome almost insurmountable odds to discover America and bring this rich new land to the attention of the gentiles in Europe (1 Nephi 12:12; 'Admiral of the Ocean Sea,' by Dr. Samuel Eliot Morison, pp. 46-47).

" . . . God revealed to his ancient American [Book of Mormon] prophets that shortly after the discovery of American there would be peoples in Europe [the Pilgrims] who would desire to escape the persecution and tyranny of the Old World and flee to American (1 Nephi 13:13-16)

("Prophet Nephi, Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:10-20," quoted in "Prophets, Principles and National Survival," 2nd ed., Jerreld L. Newquist, comp. [Salt Lake City, Utah: Publishers Press, 1964], pp. 52-53, 252; and Index, under "Pilgrims," p. 554)

--A National Day of Turkey is the Mormon God's Will

In an article designed to swell the hearts of the Mormon faithful (for whom terra-firma facts have never stood in the way of fallciously-fervent faith), a TBM--quoting LDS uninspired scripturees and LDs uninspired leaders--intones on "Thankgiving" being "a Day of the Lord":

"Reading up on Thanksgiving in the Scriptures, I came across D&C 59 that is very fitting for the Holiday celebration. The topic is a discussion of the proper Lord’s Day observance. It could be talking just as much about the Thanksgiving season and what it can mean as a religious Holiday. Ponder the following exhortation:

"'13. And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.

"'14. Verily, this is fasting and prayer, or in other words, rejoicing and prayer.

"'15. And inasmuch as ye do these things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance—

"'16. Verily I say, that inasmuch as ye do this, the fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth;

"'17. Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards;

"'18. Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;

"'19. Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.

"'20. And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.

"'21. And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.'

"What goodness could be accomplished if, as a culture, such an attitude would be maintained for longer than a day or short month. Instead, we think ahead to Christmas without the glorious anticipation of piety for the birth of the Savior. Rather, we spend most of the time running around to shop, look at the bright lights, and enjoy spectacle divorced of spiritual wonder. No longer is the focus on family, friends, or charity beyond a few token acknowledgements in word and deed.

"Elder Marion G. Romney wote about thankfulness:

"'Great men have always recognized the greatness of God and their dependence upon him, and they have with regularity rendered to him gratitude and thanksgiving.

"'Consider these words written by Abraham Lincoln as part of a resolution in 1863:

“'"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in number, wealth, and power as no other Nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God who made us.

“'"It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended power, to confess our … sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.” (John Wesley Hill, "Abraham Lincoln, Man of God," 4th ed., [New York, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, p. 391)

"Note also how the Prophet Joseph Smith responded to the receipt of some letters during the time he was languishing in Liberty Jail: 'We received some letters last evening [and] we were much gratified with their contents,' he wrote. 'We had been a long time without information; and when we read those letters they were to our souls as the gentle air is refreshing.' ("History of the Church," vol. 3, p. 293)

"You and I are, of course, moved by these quotations. They are not, however, the source of our most powerful motivation to develop greater gratitude and more fervent thanksgiving. We have been commanded by the Lord to be thankful.

"He then went on to quote D&C 46:7 and 32, D&C 59:5–7, D&C 78:19, D&C 98:1, and D&C 136:28 to show that thankfulness isn’t just an emotion. It is a part of our required religious observance. No prayer or action can pass without an expression of gratitude for all the Lord has done for us personally and the world. To have a thankful spirit means to stop and smell the roses blooming all around. Even in the winter of life each snowflake has a beauty masked by the harshness of the cold. This Thanksgiving remember, ” When upon life’s billows you are tempest-tossed/ When you are discouraged, thinking all is lost/ Count your many blessings; name them one by one/ And it will surprise you what the Lord has done” (LDS Hymn 241). After the season, don’t forget to keep expressing gratitude for whatever blessing, great or small, we each are given.

"In the spirit of the above words, I would like to say how grateful I am for the Internet. Despite the evil that can be found online, there is also a great many opportunities to have a positive connection with family, friends, and strangers who otherwise would have little or no communication. . . ."

("Thanksgiving as a Day pf the Lord," posted by "jettboy," 24 November 2013, at: http://www.millennialstar.org/thanksgiving-as-a-day-of-the-lord/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMillennialStar+%28Millennial+Star%29)
_____


Thanks, dear brother, for opening the door to searching "online." In addition to actual books, let's turn to what what you call the "evils" of the Internet for some "Thanksgiving Day" enlightenment that, of course, won't be part of the full-course spiel brought to you by the Mormon Church's historically-sanitized recipes located in its approved Sunday School manuals. When it comes to a healthy diet for the mind, what those LDS recipes offer is slim pickins, indeed.

Below are some pertinent details behind the creation, evolution and myth-making of "Thanksgiving Day"--largely as a result of CHristianized propaganda peddled over time by foreign, white, male, puritanical, imperialist European invaders of the Western Hemisphere who delivered the goods from God--via guns and gore--to its native inhabitants. (Kinda sounds like the Mormon Church under Brigham Young during the its "reformation" period of the 1850s).

For the benefit of any lurking Latter-day Saints here, we'll start out slow, eventually building up to some rather grisly historical realites. (As they say, milk before the turkey meat).
_____


From the article, "The 'First Thanksgiving': Facts and Fancies":

--Not the First, Not Unique and, in Fact, of Relatively Recent American-Colonizer Vintage

"The event we now know as 'the First Thanksgiving' was, in fact, neither the first occurrence of our modern American holiday, nor was it even a 'Thanksgiving' in the eyes of the Pilgrims who celebrated it. It was, instead, a traditional English harvest celebration to which the colonists invited Massasoit, the most important sachem among the Wamapanoag. It was only in the 19th century that this event became identified with the American Thanksgiving holiday. . . .

"The association between Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims had been suggested as early as 1841 when Alexander Young identified the 1621 harvest celebration as the 'first Thanksgiving' in New England, but their importance among the holiday's symbols did not occur until after 1900. It was then that the familiar illustrations of Pilgrims and Native Americans sitting down to dinner in peace and concord appeared widely in calendar art and on patriotic murals.

"The real New England Thanksgiving, as is shown in the 1777 proclamation, bore less of a resemblance to our modern holiday than the feasting and games of the Pilgrim harvest celebration. But when the Victorians were looking for the historical antecedent of the contemporary Thanksgiving holiday, the Pilgrim festival with its big dinner and charitable hospitality seemed the perfect match. The fact that the 1621 event had not been a Thanksgiving in the Pilgrims' own eyes was irrelevant. The Pilgrim harvest celebration quickly became the mythic 'First Thanksgiving' and has remained the primary historical representation of the holiday ever since. The earlier Pilgrim holiday, 'Forefathers' Day' (December 21st, the anniversary of the Landing on Plymouth Rock), which had been celebrated since 1769 faded in importance as the Pilgrims increasingly became the patron saints of the American Thanksgiving."


--A Back-and-Forth Routine Regional Religious Event That Eventually Went National

"The association of the Pilgrims with the Thanksgiving holiday has a complicated history. The holiday itself evolved out of a routine Puritan religious observation, irregularly declared and celebrated in response to God's favorable Providence, into an single, annual, quasi-secular New England autumnal celebration.

"The first national Thanksgiving was declared in 1777 by the Continental Congress, and others were declared from time to time until 1815. The holiday then reverted to being a regional observance until 1863, when two national days of Thanksgiving were declared, one celebrating the victory at Gettysburg on August 6, and the other the first of our last-Thursday-in-November annual Thanksgivings. Although the Pilgrims' 1621 harvest celebration had been identified as the first American Thanksgiving as early as 1841 by Alexander Young, the common Thanksgiving symbolic associations in the 19th century centered on turkeys, Yankee dinners and an annual family reunion, not Pilgrims. Mention of the Pilgrims brought the Landings or Myles, Priscilla, and John to mind, not Thanksgiving.

"Moreover, whenever a Pilgrim, or more accurately, a generic 17th-century puritan image appeared in popular art in connection with Thanksgiving during the 19th century, it was not the now familiar scene of English and Indians sitting down to an outdoor feast. On the contrary, the image almost always portrayed a violent confrontation between colonist and Native American.

"It was only after the turn of the century, when the western Indian wars were over and the 'vanishing red man" was vanishing satisfactorily, that the romantic (and historically correct) idyllic image of the two cultures sitting down to an autumn feast became popular. By the First World War, popular art (especially postcards), schoolbooks and literature had linked the Pilgrims and the First Thanksgiving indivisibly together, so much so that the image of the Pilgrim and the familiar fall feast almost ousted the Landing and older patriotic images from the popular consciousness. This alliance also deflated Forefathers' Day, which sank in to insignificance even in Plymouth itself. . . .

"The Pilgrims were cast in their Forefathers role to provide an example of the close-knit, religiously inspired American community that people worried about the decline of basic values during the First World War period wished to instill in their descendants. While retaining their Victorian symbolic virtues, the Pilgrims became usable history for generations of school children, and played an important part in the Americanization of the Northern and Eastern immigrants entering the country. New elements and a new theme supporting this role were added to the Pilgrim Story as the Pilgrims acquired their most recent and important popular association: the Thanksgiving holiday. A modern image, the First Thanksgiving, showed Pilgrim families sitting down to a pastoral celebration with the Native Americans in eirenic harmony, thus symbolizing the potential for unity of different ethnic background.

"Equally important at the turn of the century was the inspirational image of the Pilgrims and the Native Americans sharing their communal meal in harmony. The country was seriously concerned over immigration and the problems surrounding the integration of the new citizens into American culture. The Thanksgiving image of dissimilar ethnic communities co-existing amid peace and plenty was an irresistible symbol. The Pilgrims became the exemplary immigrants whose Protestant virtues made them the preferred model for all later arrivals. Americanization programs, which were intended to socialize the new immigrants by instilling in them the values and beliefs of 'real' Americans, made good use of the symbols and ideals of Thanksgiving and the Pilgrims. By 1920, when the Pilgrims' 300th anniversary celebration elevated them to the pinnacle of their fame, their role as Thanksgiving icons and the 'spiritual ancestors' of all Americans became permanently fixed in the American psyche."


--Turkeys, Not Pilgrim Party-Time; War, Not Popularized Peace-Time

"During the second half of the 19th century, Thanksgiving was more commonly symbolized by its New England origins and its chief dinner constituent, the turkey, than by the Pilgrims' 1621 harvest celebration.

"In addition to the rural New England theme, there were a diversity of contemporary and historical illustrations and stories, including Thanksgivings on the battlefield, down south with African-Americans and in the urban slums, as well as a few generic colonial New England (and Old England) Puritan images. It is surprising to note that when the colonists are represented, they are less likely to be sharing their feast with their Native American neighbors, than illustrating European and Native American conflict, indicated by a hail of arrows! Apparently the very real dangers of the Indian Wars in the West produced a sense of fear and guilt which was expressed in this fashion, in graphic contrast with the familiar peaceful autumn pastorals that we associate with the holiday today.

"It was only after the wars were over that a sentimental regard for the satisfactorily 'vanishing Red Man' provoked a national change of heart in which Jennie Brownscombe could create her idyllic 'First Thanksgiving' '1914). Even then the image of the Thanksgiving 'Pilgrim-puritan" fleeing a shower of arrows retained a popular appeal."

("The 'First Thanksgiving': Facts and Fancies," at: http://web.ccsd.k12.wy.us/techcurr/social%20studies/05/0101firstt.html)
_____


Exposing the 20th-Century Inventions Behind the "First Thanksgiving"

From the article, "Governor Bradford's Alleged First Thanksgiving Proclamation":

"For some years, a document . . . described as Governor Bradford's 'first Thanksgiving' proclamation has surfaced periodically. [Below is the wording of this purportedly authentic document]:

"'The First Thanksgiving Proclamation'

"'In 1623, William Bradford, the first Governor of the Colony, wrote a proclamation containing the spirit of the first Thanksgiving.

"'Inasmuch as the great Father has given us this year an abundant harvest of Indian corn, wheat, peas, squashes and garden vegetables, and made the forest to abound with game and the sea with fish and clams, and inasmuch as he has protected us from the ravages of the savages, has spared us from the pestilence and granted us freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience, now I, your magistrate do proclaim that all ye Pilgrims, with your wives and ye little ones, do gather at ye meeting house, on ye hill, between the hours of nine and 12 in the daytime on Thursday, November ye 29th, of the year of our Lord, one thousand six hundred and twenty-three, and the third year since ye Pilgrims landed on ye Plymouth Rock, there to listen to ye Pastor and render Thanksgiving to ye Almighty God for all his blessings.'"

"[While Bradford's proclamation] is supposed to date from 1623, which is indeed the year of the first Day of Thanksgiving proclaimed in Plymouth Colony, . . . there are a number of problems with this identification:

"*The date of celebration was given as November 29, while the 1623 event happened in the summer, most probably the end of July.

"*The 1623 event celebrated two events--the end of a drought, and the news that a ship carrying new colonists, feared sunk, was safe and in transit. It had nothing to do with the harvest, activities of Native Americans, pestilence or the establishment of the church.

"*Plymouth Colony had no pastor at this time; the religious leader was Elder William Brewster.

"*The proclamation included anachronistic terms such as vegetables, Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock.

"Based on the above evidence, the proclamation was probably created sometime in the 20th century. . . .

("Governor Bradford's Alleged First Thanksgiving Proclamation," at: http://web.ccsd.k12.wy.us/techcurr/social%20studies/05/0101th-bradp.html)
http://web.ccsd.k12.wy.us/techcurr/social%20studies/05/0101th-bradp.html


As to the gloriously-embellished Pilgrim landing at Plymouth Rock, the real story lacks all the latter-day luster. Tad Tuleja. in his book, "Fabulous Fallacies: More Than 300 Popular Beliefs That Are Not True" (New York, New York: Harmony Books, 1982, p. 61-62), reports that this "patriotic treasure" of a tale has been exaggerated to unrecognizable proportions:

"The pictures of those tall-hatted folks stepping off the Mayflower and being greeted at . . . [Plymouth] Rock by friendly Indians has adorned almost as many books as the view of Washington crossing the Delaware. . . . It's a great tale but, unfortunately, as much legend as fact.

"The Pilgrims did disembark at Plymouth, but only after members of their party had already tried several other now-forgotten places. . . . Continuing to search for a hospitable harbor [after two failed expeditions around Cape Cod], the [circling] scouts . . . decid[ed], finally, on Plymouth. . . . The famous December 21 [1620] landing thus took place while the Mayflower was still moored at Provincetown [harbor, where it had pulled in on 21 November, followed by a failed effort by a scouting party to find a suitable place to settle in). The ship made it to Plymouth a few days later, when the passengers began to disembark. No Indians greeted them (for which they heartily thanked God).

"[N]or is there any contemporary evidence that they set foot on Plymouth Rock. The Rock story got started in 1741 by John Faunce, who was born 26 years after the landing and who presumably had heard tales of it from the elders. the Rock may have been the place pr it may, like another rock, have been blarney. [William Bradford, 'On Plymouth Plantation,' Samuel Eliot Morison, ed., (Knopf, 1952)."


Richard Shenkman, in his book, "Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of American History" (New York, New York: HarperPerennial, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1988, p. 144), strongly asserts that, in fact, "[t]he belief that the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock rests solely on dubious secondhand testimony given by a 95-year-old man more than a century after the Mayflower arrived. That statement was made in 1741 by Elder Thomas Faunce, who based his claims on a story he had supposedly been told as a boy by his father, who himself arrived in American three years after the Mayflower."

(Adding to another point made above, Shenkman notes, "At any rate, the Pilgrims didn't first land at Plymouth. They landed at Provincetown. To the considerable dismay of the residents of Pronvincetown, however, nobody remembers that").

Finally, Shenman writes that "Plymouth was not . . . the first English settlement in North American, or even the first permanent settlement. Jamestown, planted in 1607, was first. The Pilgrims have won the reputation that they were first only because New England historians made such a fuss about them. And until the 19th century, American history was largely written of, by and for New Englanders. Their original bias endures."


With regard to the much-revered Puritans and their LDS-admired reputation (historical or not), Tuleja has more bad news for Mormon mouthpieces of myth:

"While the Puritans were, indeed, conscious of the depravity of the world and the ubiquity of temptation, they took this, [according to historian Carl Degler], as a spur to moral activity rather than an excuse to retreat from social life.

"Indeed, since God had made the world, it was incumbent upon the good Puritan to enjoy its many delights, as well as to guard against excessive pleasure. Even Calvin had observed that God had made 'many things worthy of our estimation independent of any necessity use.' The Puritan was thus enjoined to moderation, but also cautioned not to belittle the senses.

"This went for sexuality, too. 'Though it would certainly be false, ' Degler says, 'to suggest that the Puritans did not subscribe to the canon of simple chastity, it is equally erroneous to think that their sexual lives were crabbed or that sex was abhorrent to them.' That notion was a 19th-century accretion, added to the 'moderate and essentially wholesome view of life's evils held by the early settlers of New England.

"Loveless though their lives may look to us, there is considerable evidence that the Puritans encouraged love in marriage and that, even outside, of marriage, sexual relations were not uncommon. Such lapses were to be confessed, of course, but their presence in Puritan communities suggests that daily life in the 17th century may not have been as bloodless as is often supposed. Hester Prynne, evidently, had company. [Carl Degler, 'Were the Puritans "Puritanical?"', in 'Myth and the American Expereince,' Nicholas Cords and Patrick Gerster, eds. (Glencoe, 1978, p. 63)."


Shenkman, in "Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of American History," agrees that when it comes to sex and the Puritans, most Americans are wrongly convinced that Puritans were "hostile" to it, "and, for that matter, [to] all other worldly pleasures as well. . . .

"Scholars," notes Shenkman, "long ago determined that while the Puritans frowned on immorality and were, no doubt, less promiscuous than their descendants, they happily welcomed the practice of sex. When one married couple revealed that they had been abstaining form sex to achieve a higher spirituality, John Cotton, the Puritan's Puritan, sternly recorded his belief that they were the victims of 'blind zeal,' adding, 'They are the dictates of a blind mind that follow therein, and not of the Holy Spirit, which saith, It is not good that man should be alone.'

"Some have charged that the Puritans were sexually repressed and inhabited, supposedly the reason for Americans' love-standing hang-ups with sex. In reality, the Puritans not only considered intercourse within marriage a positive good but talked about it in public. When one James Mattock refused to sleep with is wife for two years running, the matter was taken up by the members of his congregation of the First Church of Boston. After a free and open discussion of the subject, they expelled him.

"In some ways, Puritan families may have been even more open about sex than American families today. As historian Jerry Frost points out, given the fact that parents and children usually lived together in the same room, they really had not choice. Even if parents had been inclined to conceal the rudimentary facts of sex from their children, as a practical matter they couldn't.

"As a matter of fact, the Puritans apparently didn't try very hard to shelter their children from sex and may have been less protective than parents are now. Today not even liberal parents allow their teenage daughters to sleep with potential suitors. But the Puritans did--as long as everyone remained clothed. The practice, known s bundling, led to sexual experimentation and unwanted babies. Nonetheless, it flourished.

"The strongest charge leveled against the Puritans--that they punished sex offenders brutally--is exaggerated. Most adulterers, for instance, got off with just a whipping and a fine. In all of 17th-century Massachusetts, only three adulterers ere ever put to death. Says Edmund Morgan, 'Sodomy, to be sure, they usually punished with death; but rape, adultery and fornication they regarded as pardonable human weaknesses, all the more likely to appear n a religious community, where the normal course of sin was stopped by wholesome laws.'

"The Puritans did ostracize certain sexual offenders but usually allowed transgressors to continue to play a role in the community. According to Carl Degler, confessed fornicators were even allowed to remain members of the church [a level of tolerance that many Mormons would find morally objectionable]. Some, of course, suffered badly but few had to undergo the ordeal of wearing the letter 'A' (for adultery as Hester Prynne did in Nathaniel Hawthorne's 'The Scarlett Letter.' (Some people think that Hawthorne's use of the letter 'A' was merely an invention of is own making. It was not. In 1636, New Plymouth enacted a law that required adulterers 'to wear two capital letters, viz, 'AD,' cut out in cloth and sewed on their uppermost garments on their arm or back' [see Claude M. Simpson, ed., 'The Centenary Edition of the Works of Nathaniel Hawthorne,' 1972, p. 618).

"The Puritans were not as open-minded about sexual immorality as Americnns are today, of course, but they weren't as closed-minded as many of the moralists, like Anthony Comstock, who came later. As the historian Carl Degler observes, 'The Sabbatarian, anti-liquor and anti-sex attitudes usually attributed to the Puritans are a 19th-century addition to the much more moderate and wholesome view of life's evils held by the early settlers of New England.' In any case, the Puritans were not more morally intolerant than other religious gropuls that settled in America in the 1600s. To single them out as somehow different is simply unfair." (pp. 60-62),

On the issue of nuclear Family togetherness, Shenkman further points out that the Puritans were not what today's Mormons would consider champions of traditional family values:

"Far from maintaining close relations with their children, parents in the 17th and 18th centuries often kept their offspring at bay. Puritan clergymen specifically urged parents not to become too close to their children. When male children reached their teens, they were often sent away to live with other families. When parents were divorced, they custody of the children was often considered a minor matter, according to Degler. Not until the 19th century did children become sentimental idols. Only then did families begin celebrating children's birthdays." (p. 72)


Similarly, Axelrod and Phillips take a rather dim view of Puritan family ethics, in "What Every American Should Know About American History," where they write

"Puritan notions of family were . . . reflected in the social hierarchy of New England villages . . . [t}he sons of the town fathers tended to inherit their power and influence, and . . . a handful of families monopolitized local offices' [however], the basis of local self-government was the town meeting . . . . The New England church, too, boasted elements of both the patriarchal family's tyranny and the town meeting's freedom . . . In the churches, as in the town meetings, the laity enjoyed ultimate authority. Ecclesiastically, the Puritans were as intolerant as the king they had fled; politically, they were dangerous radicals, as the brethren they had left behind in England proved in 1629 when Puritan champion Oliver Cromwell overthrew King Charles I and had him executed. . . .

"Even today, . . . Americans are affected by the strange mixture of social authoritarians and political democracy that make up the Puritan legacy." (p. 31)

**********


(Continued in Part 2 of this thread, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1094546,1094889#msg-1094889)



Edited 33 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2013 01:52PM by steve benson.

(Part 2 in this thread)
_____


When it comes to the long-vaunted example Puritan moral courage, the contrarian Shenkman reminds readers that "James Truslow Adams has suggested that in one very real sense, many pioneers [such as the Puritans] were cowards. They chose to run when the going got tough at home, rather than fight and take a stand. The road west was difficult ad perilous, but it often seemed less hazardous to pioneers than remaining where they were. Adams particularly disdains the Puritans and suggest they left their native land because they lacked the strength to put up with deprivations there. 'We think of them as strong men,' writes Adams, 'but it may be questioned whether those who remained in England, faced the conditions, including possible martyrdom, and fought the Stuart tyranny to a successful finsh were not the stronger.'" (pp. 115-16)


Gore Vidal, in his book, "Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson" (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2003, p. 55), also takes a swipe at the supposedly high-minded, freedom-loving fiber of the New World's Puritan settlers:

"Many Europeans were inspired to emigrate to America, where their imported diseases helped decimate the native populations, with bubonic plague acting as a weapon of mass destruction. So, while Europe was enjoying a rebirth of Greco-Roman culture, many of those who felt ill at ease, if not hostile, to a civilization that did not revere fundamental Christianity preferred to start over in the 'new' hemisphere. As some Europeans were self-consciously trying to bring back the age of the Greek Pericles ar at least that of the Roman Antonines, fundamentalist Protestants had something more dour, more pure--indeed, Puritan--in view: shining cities on hills, with converted Indians and imported African slaves to do the heavy lifting."
_____


Other Myth-Exploding Facts about the So-Called "First Thanksgiving"

Let's get down to the food and other festive facts. From the article, "First Thanksgiving Dinner: No Turkeys. No Ladies. No Pies":

--"How Long was the First Thanksgiving Dinner?

"It wasn't just a dinner. It lasted three days.


--"Who was There?

"About 50 Pilgrims came. Plus 90 Wampanoag Indians. Says the writer Andrew Beahrs: 'About two of every three people there were Wampanoag.' (Maybe that is why, in the middle of the party, the English took out their muskets and 'exercised arms,' which Beahrs says was probably target practice, their subtle way of saying, 'Guess who's got the firepower here?')


--"Was It a Family Event? Were There Ladies There?

"Probably not. The only eyewitness account mentions 'some 90 men.' This was a political gathering. The Wampanoags and the Pilgrims were cementing a military alliance. Massoasoit, the Wampanoag king, was there. So was the English governor, William Bradford. The first Thanksgiving was mostly a guys-only event where the English women, says Beahrs 'were likely doing the bulk of the cooking.'


--"Was It Held Indoors? Around a Big Table?

"No, the first Thanksgiving was probably held outdoors, including the meals. The English houses were too small to get everyone inside.


"--Did They Eat Turkey?

"We don't think so. The Wampanoag guests brought five deer with them, so venison was on the menu. The English brought fowl, 'probably migrating waterfowl like ducks and geese, which were plentiful in autumn,' says Beahrs. 'Governor William Bradford does mention taking turkeys that year, but not in connection to the harvest celebration.'


--"How About Cranberries?'

"Sorry. 'If anyone at the gathering ate cranberries, it definitely wasn't as a sweet sauce,' writes Beahrs. Sweet cranberries need maple syrup, an ingredient that wasn't plentiful till 60 years later. "The Wampanoag often ate the berries raw, or else in boiled or ash roasted corn cakes."


--"Sweet Potatoes? Pumpkin Pie? What Else wWs on the Table?

"Pumpkins, maybe. But not pies. They wouldn't show up for another generation at least.

"Linda Coombs, an Aquinnah Wampanoag and director of the Wampanoag Center for Bicultural History at Plimoth Plantation, guesses they ate 'sobaheg,' a Wampanoag favorite: a stewed mix of corn, roots, beans, squash and various meats. Plus the easy-to-gather local food: clams, lobsters, cod, eels, onions, turnips and greens from spinach to chard.


--"So, how did turkey get to be the Thanksgiving bird?

"Gradually.

"250 years after the original Thanksgiving dinner, one of the hottest cookbooks in America, a collection of recipes from Ohio housewives called the Buckeye Cookerie, suggested a bunch of 'traditional' Thanksgiving dinners, and many of them, says Beahrs, ignored the turkey:

"'[Buckeye Cookerie] suggested oyster soup, boiled cod, corned beef, and roasted goose as good Thanksgiving choices, accompanied by brown bread, pork and beans, 'delicate cabbage,' doughnuts, "superior biscuit," ginger cakes, and an array of fruits. Chicken pies were a particular favorite and seem to have been served nearly as often as turkey (usually as an additional dish rather than a substitute).'


--Who Put the Turkey on Top?

"Abe Lincoln helped by declaring Thanksgiving a national holiday. I'm sure the turkey and cranberry industries helped too, but Beahrs gives his biggest props to a 19th century magazine editor named Sarah Josepha Hale. She and her magazine, 'Godey's Lady's Book,' campaigned for a national day, wrote letters to governors, to every member of Congress, even to the president, and when she wasn't lobbying, she was writing novels that romanticized turkeys in that over-the-top drooling-with-her-pen way that may make you laugh . . . but it worked. Here's a passage from her 1827 novel, 'Northwood':

"'The roasted turkey took precedence on this occasion, being placed at the head of the table; and well did it become its lordly station, sending forth the rich odor of its savory stuffing, and finely covered with the froth of its basting. At the foot of the board, a sirloin of beef, flanked on either side by a leg of pork and loin of mutton, seemed placed as a bastion to defend the innumerable bowls of gravy and plates of vegetables disposed in that quarter. A goose and pair of ducklings occupied side stations on the table; the middle being graced, as it always is on such occasions, by the rich burgomaster of the provisions, called a chicken pie.'

"That's turkey, then sirloin, then pork, then lamb, then goose, then duck, then chicken pie, all in one sitting! Did they eat small portions or just explode? I don't know, but notice, by 1827, chicken pie, once in contention, has been shoved to the end of the table. It took 300 years or so, but eventually the turkey knocked off every other contender and is now center stage, by itself, gloriously supreme, stuffed, adorned, triumphant. Viva la turkey."

"Andrew Beahrs' book celebrating America's vanishing wild foods is called 'Twain's Feast, Searching for America's Lost Foods in the Footsteps of Samuel Clemens' (Penguin Press, 2010). Thanks to artist Allison Steinfeld for her rendering of the first dinner. She's included three invisible (well, barely visible) turkeys who, she says, 'got away.'"

("First Thanksgiving Dinner: No Turkeys. No Ladies. No Pies," by Robert Krulwich, under "krulwichwonders: Robert Krulwich on Science," 23 November 2011, National PUblic Radio, at: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2010/11/22/131516586/who-brought-the-turkey-the-truth-about-the-first-thanksgiving)
_____


For Mormon Kiddies, a Summary on the Fabulous, but Factless, Fables of Thanksgiving

--"The Myths

"Believe it or not, the settlers didn't have silver buckles on their shoes. Nor did they wear somber, black clothing. Their attire was actually bright and cheerful. Many portrayals of this harvest celebration also show the Native Americans wearing woven blankets on their shoulders and large, feathered headdresses, which is not true. The Englishmen didn’t even call themselves Pilgrims.


--"Modern Thanksgiving

"In the 19th century, the modern Thanksgiving holiday started to take shape. In 1846, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of a magazine called 'Godley’s Lady’s Book,' campaigned for an annual national thanksgiving holiday after a passage about the harvest gathering of 1621 was discovered and incorrectly labeled as the first Thanksgiving.

"It wasn't until 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln declared two national Thanksgivings; one in August to commemorate the Battle of Gettysburg and the other in November to give thanks for 'general blessings.'


--"Native Americans and Thanksgiving

"The peace between the Native Americans and settlers lasted for only a generation. The Wampanoag people do not share in the popular reverence for the traditional New England Thanksgiving. For them, the holiday is a reminder of betrayal and bloodshed. Since 1970, many native people have gathered at the statue of Massasoit in Plymouth, Massachusetts, each Thanksgiving Day to remember their ancestors and the strength of the Wampanoag."

("First Thanksgiving," text by Lyssa Walker, "adapted from '1621: A New Look at Thanksgiving,' by Catherine O'Neill Grace and Margaret M. Bruchac with Plimoth Plantation, 2001, National Geographic Society," at: http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/stories/history/first-thanksgiving/)
_____


--Now, the Tough Stuff for Knocking Out That Testimonial Turkey Stuffing

From the article, "Thanksgiving: Celebrating the Genocide of Native Americans":

--Concocted in the Colonizing Context of Mass Murder of Native Americans and the Introduction of Black Slavery

"The sad reality about the United States of America is that in a matter of a few hundreds years it managed to rewrite its own history into a mythological fantasy. The concepts of liberty, freedom and free enterprise in the 'land of the free, home of the brave' are a mere spin.

"The U.S. was founded and became prosperous based on two original sins: firstly, on the mass murder of Native Americans and theft of their land by European colonialists; secondly, on slavery. This grim reality is far removed from the fairytale version of a nation that views itself in its collective consciousness as a virtuous universal agent for good and progress."


--A Disneyeque Make-Over of Post-Mayflower Mayhem

"In rewriting its own history about 'Thanksgiving,' white America tells a Disney-like fairytale about the English pilgrims and their struggle to survive in a new and harsh environment. The pilgrims found help from the friendly Native-American tribe, the Wampanoag Indians, in 1621.

"Unfortunately for Native Americans, the European settlers’ gratitude was short-lived. By 1637, Massachusetts governor John Winthrop ordered the massacre of thousands of Pequot Indian men, women and children. This event marked the start of a Native-American genocide that would take slightly more than 200 years to complete, and of course to achieve its ultimate goal, which was to take the land from Native Americans and systematically plunder their resources. The genocide begun in 1637 marks the beginning of the conquest of the entire continent until most Native Americans were exterminated, a few were assimilated into white society, and the rest were put in reservations to dwindle and die.

"In other words, to celebrate Thanksgiving in the U.S. is like setting aside a day in Germany to celebrate the Holocaust. Thanksgiving is the American Holocaust. . . .

"Defenders of Thanksgiving will say that whatever the original murky meaning of the holiday, it has become a rare chance to spend time with family and show appreciation for what one has. On this Thanksgiving day, rich celebrities and politicians will make a parody of what should be real charity by feeding countless poor and homeless. This will ease their conscience, at least for a while. . . .But charity should not be a substitute for social justice. Just to ruin some people’s appetites before they attack that golden turkey: keep in mind that today we are celebrating a genocide."

("Thanksgiving: Celebrating the Genocide of Native Americans," by Gilbert Mercier, at: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/11/25/thanksgiving-celebrating-the-genocide-of-native-americans/)
_____


--Looking at History, Not "His Story" (meaning the whitewash from a lot of white guys)

From the article, "WHy I Hate Thanksgiving" (note--I don't hate "Thanksgiving," per se, just the falseLY-portrayed parts of its barbaric and inhumane history):

"In 'A People’s History of the United States,' historian Howard Zinn writes how Arawak men and women--naked, tawny, and full of wonder--emerged from their villages onto the island’s beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. Columbus later wrote of this in his log. Here is what he wrote:

"'They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned. They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of sugar cane. They would make fine servants. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.'

"And so the conquest began, and the Thanotocracy--the regime of death--was inaugurated, for the first time, on the continent the Indians called 'Turtle Island.'

"You probably already know a good piece of the story: How Columbus’s army took Arawak and Taino people prisoners and insisted that they take him to the source of their gold, which they used in tiny ornaments in their ears. And how, with utter contempt and cruelty, Columbus took many more Indians prisoner and put them aboard the Nina and the Pinta--the Santa Maria having run aground on the island of Hispañola (today, the Dominican Republic and Haiti). When some refused to be taken prisoner, they were run through with swords and bled to death. Then the Nina and the Pinta set sail for the Azores and Spain. During the long voyage, many of the Indian prisoners died. Here’s part of Columbus’s report to Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain:

"'The Indians are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone.” Columbus concluded his report by asking for a little help from the King and Queen, and in return he would bring them “as much gold as they need, and as many slaves as they ask.'

"Columbus returned to the New World--'new' for Europeans, that is--with 17 ships and more than 1,200 men. Their aim was clear: slaves and gold. They went from island to island in the Caribbean, taking Indians as captives.

"But word spread ahead of them. By the time they got to Fort Navidad on Haiti, the Taino had risen up and killed all the sailors left behind on the last voyage, after the sailors had roamed the island in gangs raping women and taking children and women as slaves. Columbus later wrote: 'Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.'

"The Indians began fighting back but were no match for the war technology of the Spaniard conquerors, even though they greatly outnumbered them. In eight years, Columbus’s men murdered more than 100,000 Indians on Haiti alone. Overall, dying as slaves in the mines, directly murdered or dying from diseases brought to the Caribbean by the Spaniards, over 3,000,000 Indian people were murdered in the Americas between 1492 and 1508." ("Why I Hate Thanksgiving," by Mitchel Cohen, "with much material contributed by Peter Linebaugh and others whose names have been lost," at: http://www.serendipity.li/hr/cohen.htm)


[More on the legacy of Columbus's atrocities, as noted in Tad Tuleja's book, "Fabulous Fallacies: More Than 300 Popular Beliefs That Are Not True" (New York, New York: Harmony Books, 1982), p. 61: "So much romance surrounds the disappearance of ['the New World's first 'lost' colony at] Roanoke in the 1550s that it is seldom realized that nearly a century before the Virginia disaster occurred, a colony of European settlers was established and soon after 'lost' a few hundred miles to the south. The founder was Columbus himself. On Christmas Day, 1492, as he was preparing to return to Spain, his flagship, the Santa Maria, foundered on a coral reef in Caracol Bay and it soon became apparent that it would not be able to make the return voyage. Making a virtue of necessity, the admiral had the ship dismantled and out of its timbers constructed the first European fort in the New World. He called it, af the day of its founding, La Navidad, and to guard it, he left 40 volunteers while he took the rest of his crew back to Spain. A year later, when he returned to the Caribbean on his second voyage, nothing remained of the settlement and not a man of his complement was alive. Friendly Indians, who had helped the Spaniards erect the fort, told a tale of avarice and lust that, they said, had led to the colony's demise barely a month from its establishment. Evidently, the Europeans left behind had tested the patience of the Indians by numerous robberies and rapes, until the natives had reacted and killed them. Thus, the first lost settlement set a pattern that would be much imitated until numbers outweighed scruples and the losses all ran red. [Samuel Eliot Morison, 'Admiral of the Ocean Sea' (Little, Brown, 1946)]"


Now, back to Cohen's "Why I Hate Thanksgiving":

"What Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas and the Taino of the Caribbean, Cortez did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots. Literally millions of native peoples were slaughtered. And the gold, slaves and other resources were used in Europe--to spur the growth of the new-money economy rising out of feudalism. Karl Marx would later call this 'the primitive accumulation of capital.' These were the violent beginnings of an intricate system of technology, business, politics and culture that would dominate the world for the next five centuries.

"In the North American English colonies, the pattern was set early. In 1585, before there was any permanent English settlement in Virginia, Richard Grenville landed there with seven ships. The Indians he met were hospitable, but when one of them stole a small silver cup, Grenville sacked and burned the whole Indian village.

"The Jamestown colony was established in Virginia in 1607, inside the territory of an Indian confederacy, led by the chief, Powhatan. Powhatan watched the English settle on his people’s land but did not attack. And the English began starving. Some of them ran away and joined the Indians, where they would at least be fed. Indeed, throughout colonial times tens of thousands of indentured servants, prisoners and slaves--from Wales and Scotland as well as from Africa--ran away to live in Indian communities, inter-marry, and raise their children there.

"In the summer of 1610, the governor of Jamestown colony asked Powhatan to return the runaways, who were living among the Indians. Powhatan left the choice to those who ran away, and none wanted to go back. The governor of Jamestown then sent soldiers to take revenge. They descended on an Indian community, killed 15 or 16 Indians, burned the houses, cut down the corn growing around the village, took the female leader of the tribe and her children into boats, then ended up throwing the children overboard and shooting out their brains in the water. The female leader was later taken off the boat and stabbed to death.

"By 1621, the atrocities committed by the English had grown and word spread throughout the Indian villages. The Indians fought back and killed 347 colonists. From then on it was total war. Not able to enslave the Indians the English aristocracy decided to exterminate them.

"And then the Pilgrims arrived.

"When the Pilgrims came to New England, they, too, were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by tribes of Indians. The story goes that the Pilgrims--who were Christians of the Puritan sect--were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. They had fled England and went to Holland, and from there sailed aboard the Mayflower, where they landed near what is now Plymouth, Massachusetts.

"Religious persecution or not, they immediately turned to their religion to rationalize their persecution of others. They appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: 'Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.' To justify their use of force to take the land, they cited Romans 13:2: 'Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.'

"The Puritans lived in uneasy truce with the Pequot Indians, who occupied what is now southern Connecticut and Rhode Island. But they wanted them out of the way; they wanted their land. And they wanted to establish their rule firmly over Connecticut settlers in that area.

"The way the different Indian peoples lived--communally, consensually, making decisions through tribal councils- contrasted dramatically with the Puritans’ Christian fundamentalist values. For the Puritans, men decided everything whereas, in the Iroquois federation of what is now New York state, women chose the men who represented the clans at village and tribal councils; it was the women who were responsible for deciding on whether or not to go to war. The Christian idea of male dominance and female subordination was conspicuously absent in Iroquois society.

"There were many other cultural differences: The Iroquois did not use harsh punishment on children. They did not insist on early weaning or early toilet training, but gradually allowed children to learn to care for themselves. On the other hand, the pastor of the Pilgrim colony, John Robinson, advised his parishioners: 'And surely there is in all children a stubbornness and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride, which must, in the first place, be broken and beaten down.' The Pilgrims embraced those strict, brutal practices.

"Each tribe held to different sexual/marriage relationships; they practiced many different sexualities and celebrated them. These ideas repelled the Puritan hierarchy and attracted some of the European 'commoners,' Native people did not believe in ownership of land--that concept was totally alien; they utilized the land, lived on it. The idea of 'ownership' was ridiculous, absurd. The European Christians, on the other hand, in the spirit of the emerging capitalism, wanted to own and control everything--land, children, sexuality, and other human beings.

"In 1636 an armed expedition left Boston to attack the Narragansett Indians on Block Island. The English landed and killed some Indians, but the rest hid in the thick forests of the island and the English went from one deserted village to the next, destroying crops. Then they sailed back to the mainland and raided Pequot villages along the coast, destroying crops again.

"The English went on setting fire to wigwams in the village. They burned village after village to the ground. As one of the leading theologians of his day, Dr. Cotton Mather put it: 'No less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day.' And Cotton Mather, clutching his Bible, spurred the English to slaughter more Indians in the name of Christianity.

"One colonist rationalized the plague that had destroyed the Patuxet people--a combination of slavery, murder by the colonists and disease brought by the English--as 'the Wonderful preparation of the Lord Jesus Christ by His providence for His people’s abode in the Western world.'

"The Pilgrims robbed Wampanoag graves for the food that had been buried with the dead for religious reasons. Whenever the Pilgrims realized they were being watched, they shot at the Wampanoags and scalped them. Scalping had been unknown among Native Americans in New England prior to its introduction by the English, who began the practice by offering the heads of their enemies and later accepted scalps.

"300,000 Indians were murdered in New England over the next few years. It was the Puritan elite who wanted the war--a war for land, for gold, for power. It is important to note that ordinary Englishmen did not want this war. Often, very often, they refused to fight.

"There has always been a strong anti-war movement in the United States and when some Europeans refused to kill Indians, that was the start of this proud heritage. Some European intellectuals like Roger Williams spoke out against the genocide. And some erstwhile colonists joined the Indians and even took up arms against the invaders from England. In the end, however, the Indian population of 10,000,000 that was in North America when Columbus came was reduced to less than 1,000,000.

“'What do you think of Western civilization?,' Mahatma Gandhi was asked in the 1940s. To which Gandhi replied: 'Western Civilization? I think it would be a good idea.' And so enters 'civilization,' the civilization of Christian Europe, a 'civilizing force' that couldn’t have been more threatened by the beautiful communal anarchy of the Indians they encountered, and so they slaughtered them.

"These are the Puritans that the Indians 'saved,' and whom we celebrate in the holiday, Thanksgiving. Tisquantum,--also known as--was a member of the Patuxet Indian nation and Samoset was of the Wabonake Indian nation, which lived in Maine. They went to Puritan villages and, having learned to speak English, brought deer meat and beaver skins for the hungry, cold Pilgrims. Tisquantum stayed with them and helped them survive their first years in their New World. He taught them how to navigate the waters, fish and cultivate corn and other vegetables. He pointed out poisonous plants and showed how other plants could be used as medicines. He also negotiated a peace treaty between the Pilgrims and Massasoit, head chief of the Wampanoags, a treaty that gave the Pilgrims everything and the Indians nothing. And even that treaty, like hundreds to follow, was soon broken.

"We learn in school to celebrate this as the First Thanksgiving. A community college named 'Massasoit' today commemorates that indigenous leader who saved the Pilgrims.

"Richard B. Williams, a Lakota Sioux and the executive director of the American Indian College Fund--a historian, educator and the founder of the Upward Bound Program at the University of Colorado at Boulder--casts this tale in a very different light:

"'One day in 1605, a young Patuxet Indian boy named Tisquantum and his dog were out hunting when they spotted a large English merchant ship off the coast of Plymouth, Massachusetts. Tisquantum, who later became known as Squanto, had no idea that life as he knew it was about to change forever.

"'His role in helping the Pilgrims to survive the harsh New England winter and celebrate the 'first' Thanksgiving has been much storied as a legend of happy endings, with the English and the Indians coming together at the same table in racial harmony. Few people, however, know the story of Squanto's sad life and the demise of his tribe as a result of its generosity. Each year, as the nation sits down to a meal that is celebrated by all cultures and races--the day we know as Thanksgiving--the story of Squanto and the fate of the Patuxet tribe is a footnote in history that deserves re-examination.

"'The day that Captain George Weymouth anchored off the coast of Massachusetts, he and his sailors captured Squanto and four other tribesmen and took them back to England as slaves because Weymouth thought his financial backers 'might like to see' some Indians. Squanto was taken to live with Sir Ferdinando Gorges, owner of the Plymouth Company. Gorges quickly saw Squanto's value to his company's exploits in the New World and taught his young charge to speak English so that his captains could negotiate trade deals with the Indians.

"'In 1614, Squanto was brought back to America to act as a guide and interpreter to assist in the mapping of the New England coast, but was kidnapped along with 27 other Indians and taken to Malaga, Spain, to be sold as slaves for about $25 a piece. When local priests learned of the fate of the Indians, they took them from the slave traders, Christianized them and eventually sent them back to America in 1618.

"'But his return home was short-lived. Squanto was recognized by one of Gorges’ captains, was captured a third time and sent back to England as Gorges’ slave. He was later sent back to New England with Thomas Dermer to finish mapping the coast, after which he was promised his freedom. In 1619, however, upon returning to his homeland, Squanto learned that his entire tribe had been wiped out by smallpox contracted from the Europeans two years before. He was the last surviving member of his tribe.

"'In November 1620, the Pilgrims made their now-famous voyage to the coast of Plymouth, which had previously been the center of Patuxet culture. The next year, on March 22, 1621, Squanto was sent to negotiate a peace treaty between the Wampanoag Confederation of tribes and the Pilgrims. We also know that Squanto’s skills as a fisherman and farmer were crucial to the survival of the Pilgrims that first year--contributions which changed history.

"'But in November 1622, Squanto himself would also succumb to smallpox during a trading expedition to the Massachusetts Indians. The Patuxet, like so many other tribes, had become extinct."


[Note: Historians Alan Axelrod and Charles Phillips, in their book, "What Every American Should Know About American History" (Holbrook, Massachusetts: Adams Media Corporation, 1992, p. 29), note that, despite the inhumane treatment afforded Squanto by his colonizing European captors, the Puritans ironically "viewed as a blessing from God the appearance of Squanto and Samoset, local Indians who had learned English from earlier explorers and who helped the Pilgrims plant crops and build their houses. In the fall of 1621, the Pilgrims and their Native American friends gathered to celebrate the harvest, an even that is commemorated yearly on Thanksgiving"].


Continuing with Cohen:

"'Feasts of gratitude and giving thanks have been a part of Indian culture for thousands of years. In Lakota culture, it's called a Wopila; in Navajo, it's Hozhoni; in Cherokee, it's Selu i-tse-i; and in Ho Chunk it's Wicawas warocu sto waroc. Each tribe, each Indian nation, has its own form of Thanksgiving. But for Indian culture, Thanksgiving doesn't end when the dishes are put away. It is something we celebrate all year long--at the birth of a baby, a safe journey, a new home.'

"My own feeling? The Indians should have left the Pilgrims to their own devices, even if it meant they would die.

"But they couldn’t do that. Their humanity made them assist other human beings in need. And for that beautiful, human, loving connection they paid a terrible price: The genocide of the original inhabitants of Turtle Island, what is now America.

"Thanksgiving, in reality, was the beginning of the longest war in the U.S.--he extermination of the Indigenous peoples. Thanksgiving day was first proclaimed by the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637, not to offer thanks for the Indians saving the Pilgrims--that’s yet another re-write of the actual history--but to commemorate the massacre of 700 indigenous men, women and children who were celebrating their annual Green Corn Dance in their own house.

"Gathered at this place, they were attacked by mercenaries, English and Dutch. The Pequots were ordered from the building and as they came forth they were killed with guns, swords, cannons and torches. The rest were burned alive in the building. The very next day the governor proclaimed a holiday and feast to 'give thanks' for the massacre. For the next 100 years a governor would ordain a day to honor a bloody victory, thanking god the 'battle' had been won. (For more information, see, 'Where White Men Fear To Tread,' by Russell Means, 1995; and 'Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire-Building,' by R. Drinnon, 1990).


"The Maypole

"In 1517, 25 years after Columbus first landed in the Bahamas, the English working class was in the midst of a huge revolt, organized through the guilds. King Henry VIII had brought to England Lombard bankers from Italy and merchants from France to undercut wages, lengthen hours and break the guilds. This alliance between international finance, national capital and military aristocracy was in the process of merging into the imperialist nation-state.

"The young workers of London took their revenge upon the merchants. A rumor said the commonality--he vision of communal society that would counter the rich, the merchants, the industrialists, the nobility and the landowners--would arise on May Day. The King and Lords got frightened--householders were armed, a curfew was declared. Two workers didn’t hear about the curfew (they missed Dan Rather on TV). They were arrested. The shout went out to mobilize and 700 workers stormed the jails, throwing bricks, hot water, stones. The prisoners were freed. A French capitalist’s house was trashed.

"Then came the repression: Cannons were fired into the city. 300 were imprisoned, soldiers patrolled the streets and a proclamation was made that no women were allowed to meet together, and that all men should 'keep their wives in their houses.' The prisoners were brought through the streets tied in ropes. Some were children. 11 sets of gallows were set up throughout the city. Many were hanged. The authorities showed no mercy and exhibited extreme cruelty.

"Thus, the dreaded Thanatocracy, the regime of death, was inaugurated in England in answer to proletarian riot at the beginning of capitalism.

"The May Day riots were caused by expropriation (people having been uprooted from their lands they had used for centuries in common), and by exploitation (people had no jobs, as the monarchy imported capital). Working class women--organizers and healers who posed an alternative to patriarchal capitalism-- were burned at the stake as witches. Enclosure, conquest, famine, war and plague ravaged the people who, in losing their commons, also lost a place to put the traditional emblem of the Commons--their Maypole.

"Suddenly, the Maypole became a symbol of rebellion. In 1550, Parliament ordered the destruction of Maypoles . . . .

"While heretical liberation-theologists of the day were burned at the stake, the Bible’s last book, Revelation, became an anti-authoritarian manual inspirational to those who would turn the Puritans’ world upside down, such as the Family of Love, the Anabaptists, the Diggers, Levellers and Ranters. In 1626, Thomas Morton, who had come over on his own, a boat person, an immigrant, went to Merry Mount in Quincy Massachusetts and with his Indian friends put up the first Maypole in America, in contempt of the Puritans. The Puritans destroyed it, and in retaliation exiled Morton, plagued the Indians, and hanged gay people and Quakers.

"In Great Britain, the proletarian insurgency flared in fits and starts throughout the empire. Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan army blazed into Ireland in 1649, slaughtered 3,500 defenders and local citizenry of the town of Drogheda, and confiscated almost forty percent of indigenous Catholic lands in Ireland, redistributing them to Protestants born in Britain. The British treatment of the Irish patriots paralleled the monarchy’s regard for the indigenous people of the “New World”.

"Although the Puritans were removed from power in England in 1660 with the death of Cromwell two years before and the ascendance of Charles II to the throne, the Puritans in the Americas continued their war against the Pequot Indians while in Britain May Day was abolished altogether, as part of the attempt to defeat the growing proletarian insurgency.

"In the Americas, rebellion was brewing among the colonists. Charles II put down Bacon’s Rebellion with great bloodshed in Virginia, during which both sides used, abused and murdered Indians to reinforce their power. The king’s emissaries began the conquest of a new string of colonies in the South.

"A century-and-a-half after Morton planted the first Maypole in the British colonies, another great 'troublemaker,' the Manchester proletarian, Ann Lee, arrived in the Americas (1774) and founded the communal living, gender-separated Shakers who praised God in ecstatic dance and, in rejecting marriage and refusing to procreate, drove the Puritans and other religious zealots up the wall.

"The story of the Maypole as a symbol of revolt continued. It crossed cultures and continued through the ages. In the late 1800s, the Sioux began the Ghost Dance in a circle, with a large pine tree in the center, which was covered with strips of cloth of various colors, eagle feathers, stuffed birds, claws and horns, all offerings to the Great Spirit. They didn’t call it a Maypole, but they danced, just as the English proletarians danced, just as the Shakers’ danced, for the unity of all Indians, the return of the dead, and the expulsion of the invaders. It might as well have been a Mayday!

"Wovoka, a Nevada Paiute, started it. Expropriated, he cut his hair. To buy watermelon he rode boxcars to work in the Oregon hop fields for small wages, exploited. The Puget Sound Indians had a new religion--they stopped drinking alcohol, became entranced, and danced for five days--jerking, twitching, calling for their land back. Wovoka took this back to Nevada: 'All Indians must dance, everywhere, keep on dancing.' Soon they were. Porcupine took the dance across the Rockies to the Sioux. Red Cloud and Sitting Bull advanced the left foot following with the right, hardly lifting their feet from the ground. The Federal Agents banned the Ghost Dance. They claimed it was a cause of the last Sioux outbreak, just as the Puritans had claimed the Maypole dancers had caused the May Day proletarian riots, just as the Shakers were dancing people into communality and out of Puritanism.

"And, just as the American working class was engaging in pitched battles in its fight for the eight-hour day.

"On December 29, 1890, the U.S. Government (with Hotchkiss guns throwing two-pound explosive shells, each containing 30 one-half-inch lead balls, at the rate of 50 per minute) massacred more than 300 men, women and children at Wounded Knee. . . . [T]he State disclaimed responsibility. The Bureau of Ethnology sent out James Mooney to investigate. Amid . . . [crocodile] tears, he wrote: 'The Indians were responsible for the engagement.' . . .

"In 1970, the town of Plymouth, Massachusetts held, as it does each year, a Thanksgiving Ceremony given by the townspeople. There are many speeches for the crowds who attend. That year. . . . the Massachusetts Department of Commerce asked the Wampanoag Indians to select a speaker to mark the 350th anniversary of the Pilgrims’ arrival, and the first Thanksgiving.

"Wamsutta 'Frank' James, a leader of the Wampanoags from Massachusetts, was selected. But before he was allowed to speak he was directed to show a copy of his speech to the 'citizens' in charge of the ceremony. When they saw what he had written, they would not allow him to read it.

"First: the genocide. Then, the suppression of all discussion about it, even a century later.

"Here is a portion of James’ speech--one of the most famous 'undelivered' speeches in American history:

"'It is with mixed emotion that I stand here to share my thoughts. This is a time of celebration for you--celebrating an anniversary of a beginning for the white man in America. A time of looking back, of reflection. It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what has happened to my people. . . .

"'Massasoit, the great Sachem of the Wampanoag, . . . .and his people, welcomed and befriended the settlers of the Plymouth Plantation. Perhaps he did this because his tribe had been depleted by an epidemic. Or his knowledge of the harsh oncoming winter was the reason for his peaceful acceptance of these acts. This action by Massasoit was perhaps our biggest mistake. We, the Wampanoag, welcomed you the white man, with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end; that before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoag would no longer be a free people. . . .

"'History wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal. A history that was written by an organized disciplined people, to expose us as an unorganized and undisciplined entity. Two distinctly different cultures met. One thought they must control life; the other believed life was to be enjoyed, because nature decreed it. . . .

"'Our spirit refuses to die. Yesterday we walked the woodland paths and shady trails. Today we must walk the macadam highways and roads. We are uniting. We're standing not in our wigwams but in your concrete tent. We stand tall and proud, and before too many moons pass we'll right the wrongs we have allowed to happen to us.

"'We forfeited our country. Our lands have fallen into the hands of the aggressor. We have allowed the white man to keep us on our knees. What has happened cannot be changed, but today we must work towards a more humane America, a more Indian America, where men and nature once again are important; where the Indian values of honor, truth and brotherhood prevail.

"'You, the white man, are celebrating an anniversary. We the Wampanoags will help you celebrate in the concept of a beginning. It was the beginning of a new life for the Pilgrims. Now 350 years later it is a beginning of a new determination for the original American: the American Indian.'

"For the indigenous people of the Americas, Thanksgiving is 'the National Day of Mourning.'

"What does anyone have to be thankful for in the genocide of the Indians that this 'holyday' commemorates? As we sit with our families on Thanksgiving, taking the opportunity to get out of work or off the streets and be in a warm place with people we love, we realize that none of the things we have to be thankful for have anything at all to do with the Pilgrims or the official (sanitized) version of American history, and everything to do with the alternative, anarcho-communist lives the Indian peoples led before they were massacred by the colonists in the name of Christianity, privatization of property and the lust for gold and slave labor.

"Yes, I am an American. But I am an American in revolt. I am revolted by the holiday known as Thanksgiving. . . . I look forward to a future where I will have children with America, and . . . they will be the new Indians."

("Why I Hate Thanksgiving," by Mitchel Cohen, "with much material contributed by Peter Linebaugh and others whose names have been lost," ibid.)
_____


Conclusion: Beating the Drumsticks of Deceit

No, I don't hate "Thanksgiving"--only the Great-White-Hope, culturally-embedded lies spun about it.

For all you Latter-Day lurkeys, your Thanksgiving fables are turkey-jerky. Take some Pepto Bismol and call Recovering rom Mormonism in the morning.

**********


(Back to Part 1 in this thread, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1094546)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2013 01:16PM by steve benson.

Assuming that all of the above information is true (and I think it probably is), I don't understand the significance of it in my life right now. Terrible attrocities were committed by our ancestors against the ancestors of today's American Indians. We need to simply mourn that and move forward with our lives.

But I bear no responsibilities for those attrocities. This happened centuries before my birth. In addition, no one alive today was ever a victem of those attrocities. It might as well have happened a thousand or a million years ago. Either way, what's the relevance to my life today?

So just like with the church, you find out you've been lied to your whole life... this time it's about the founding of your nation. Does that mean that our lives today should be burdened by it, that we should feel low and unworthy now? Should today's American Indians now expect some restitution from you and me? Is there some original sin that we're supposed to be burdened to pay for now, to atone for the sins of our ancestors? The answer in all cases is a confident "no".

This takes back to where we come in on this historical chain of events. With a clear concience, I choose to be thankful for the good things in my life. This celebration could take place on any day of the year. November 24th is just as good of a day as any other day of the year would be.

azsteve Wrote:

> Terrible attrocities were committed by our
> ancestors against the ancestors of today's
> American Indians. We need to simply mourn that and
> move forward with our lives.

Except that the effects from colonialism are still present in Native's lives every day. The media just refuses to cover it. When Natives do voice their concerns, we're told we're oversensitive and we should just get over it. Nope. That's a nicely passive-aggressive way of telling people to shut up.
>
> But I bear no responsibilities for those
> attrocities. This happened centuries before my
> birth. In addition, no one alive today was ever a
> victem of those attrocities.

Except their descendants are still alive and bearing the brunt of what was wrought by colonialism, a war that's been going on 500 years strong. Natives don't expect restitution, but they do want to have an equal voice and have the ability to make decisions to protect their lands, people, and resources.

I don't expect you to feel guilty. Hell, I don't even expect you to have any empathy because it's not your problem, so why should you care?

What a history for such a little holiday!

But all holidays develop over time. I don't ever tell the Pilgrim story to kids because I know it's a crock, but just say that Thanksgiving is a celebration of the harvest, or a celebration of having plenty of food to eat.

I really LIKE Thanksgiving. It's a holiday that is centered around visiting with family and friends and then just eating a lot of food. No gifts - Just visiting and eating! Simple. The weather out our way is usually good for travel. The meal is delicious. Leftovers are delicious and there's enough to send some home with those who came to the house.

I wish Christmas was more like Thanksgiving.

The observation of Thanksgiving as a national holiday was implemented by George Washington with no specific reference to what we commonly believe to be the "first Thanksgiving." Here's his proclamation dated October 3, 1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.