Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Gray Thanksgiving - Thanksgiving Discussion ---ORIGIN OF THANKSGIVING


Wildfire Sedai
 Share

Recommended Posts

GRAY THANKSGIVING

THANKSGIVING DISCUSSION

ORIGIN OF THANKSGIVING

 

 

thanksgiving_friendship_and_peace_classi

 

 I was taught that the indians saved the settlers lives during their first summer in America, by teaching them how to grow corn and fish amongst other things.  Then, when the settlers had their first harvest they invited the indians to a feast with all sorts of foods to thank them for helping them out.  Now what I don't understand is why it went from peacefulness and friendship to war and hatred, in under a year? :ohmy:

 

 

 When was the true "first" Thanksgiving?

 

What really happened the "first" Thanksgiving?

 

So why did the government cover up what really happened during the "first" Thanksgiving? 

Edited by Wildfire Sedai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was more than likely never a friendship to begin with. Least ways, I would never consider slaughtering my friends over land or wealth, so if there was a friendship, it was wholly one-sided. From what I can tell, the indigenous people which the myth derives from the Wampanoag tribe mistakenly decided to offer some assistance to the English settlers, and there was some trade and coexistence for as long as one of their influential chieftains was alive. After he died though, and perhaps probably as the English were finally well-established and the indigenous people dying from imported disease, they started to harrass and abuse the tribes people and then eventually it resulted in a brief war, after which the tribes people were pretty much entirely decimated by disease, slaughter, and slavery. And the pilgrims in celebration kicked the heads of the indigenous people around. 

 

So this is probably the scenario; the indigenous people helped the settlers probably as a gesture of hospitality, as that is common among indigenous peoples who are used to dealing with other tribes/peoples, hoping the good will would be returned, but the English, as is their wont, probably only saw naive and godless "savages" and were considering wiping them out from the start as soon as they had a clear advantage. The attitude of European colonialism and indigenous hospitality can pretty much be summed up with a quote by Christoper Columbus:

 

"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 cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

 

Whereas one side saw human beings, the other saw something beneath animals, merely a resource at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I agree with Taltos. I read a book "The Mayflower" as part of my book club. It was a very dry read but informative.

 

About half of the crew and many of the "pilgrims" didn't survive the first winter. IMO, they would not have survived at all without assistance from Native Americans and they ended up paying a steep price for their help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the settlers returned friendship with scorn.  I had hoped to get a discussion going about the WHY of it though: GREED.

 

The settlers were greedy.  They wanted the land and its resources but why? Only 102 people sailed, about 50 people survived.  

 

Now here's another question:

 

Were they all settlers who sailed or were there slaves who sailed as well?

 

IF there were slaves how many slaves survived per settler?

 

HOW did they keep the slaves in line if there were more slaves than settlers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the settlers returned friendship with scorn.  I had hoped to get a discussion going about the WHY of it though: GREED.

 

The settlers were greedy.  They wanted the land and its resources but why? Only 102 people sailed, about 50 people survived.  

 

Now here's another question:

 

Were they all settlers who sailed or were there slaves who sailed as well?

 

IF there were slaves how many slaves survived per settler?

 

HOW did they keep the slaves in line if there were more slaves than settlers? 

 

I wouldn't know the answers without looking them up. In any society that has ever indulged in slavery, though, there are always many more slaves than there are free people - or, at any rate, there are many more slaves than there are masters/owners. Convincing or turning someone into a slave requires what amounts to brainwashing and Stockholm syndrome - fear is a powerful motivator, and the vast majority of people, when their life or well-being is threatened by an aggressive, confident person, will take a passive or subservient position with the hopes that it might spare them, rather than fight back. People who fight back are usually killed quickly - which could allow one the entertaining idea that civilisation, which requires/required slavery to continue, has been breeding out many of the strong and brave members of the species considering they are more likely to die than sheep. But at any rate, alongside fear, the masters utilise techniques to convince/brainwash the slave into thinking the master's best interests are also the slave's best interest - generally something as simple as positive reinforcement/rewarding for good or obedient behaviour. Many domesticated humans behave similiarly to herd animals - i.e. they are readily influenced by the choices and behaviours of their peers, usually without even realising it - so that if you are surrounded by many people who are behaving as slaves, it encourages you to conform as well, to belong, to not stand out. When you have no means to provide for yourself - or you are made to think that way, even if that may not be the reality - you become dependent on the master as well, as someone who provides for you. So essentially you end up with a relationship in which the captive comes to think of their captor as their provider, protecter, even benefactor. And while it seems counterintuitive and incredulous that so many people would allow themselves to remain slaves to only a small elite, there is clearly something in the average human psyche that readily allows people to accept slavery and abuse, as it is something that has been present in all civilised societies in one form or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think much of history is whitewashed and I use that term in the literal sense as well.

 

I found this:

 

"The first Thanksgiving Day did occur in the year 1637, but it was nothing like our Thanksgiving today. On that day the Massachusetts Colony Governor, John Winthrop, proclaimed such a “Thanksgiving” to celebrate the safe return of a band of heavily armed hunters, all colonial volunteers. They had just returned from their journey to what is now Mystic, Connecticut where they massacred 700 Pequot Indians. Seven hundred Indians - men, women and children - all murdered."

 

Today, Thanksgiving has a totally different vibe. Families and friends get together, share time, food, and many watch football.

Edited by Ryrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally do not understand my government.  I am not proud to be a US citizen right now.  I thought I had done the research on Thanksgiving by going to the HISTORY channel and a couple of other sites that said "origins of thanksgiving" and they gave the same story of 1621.  Then I go farther down the search page and see a whole different story.  I do not know what to believe anymore.  I want to believe what was told to me in school however, I just can't.   

Edited by Wildfire Sedai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had started this thread on the belief that my ancestors were actually pretty decent people. Now I am not so sure. Let me do some more in depth checking:


 


So I found an interview with one of the Wampanoag Indian Historians and he pretty much confirms the 1621 tale with a little bit of differences:  WAMPANOAG


 


Then we get this one from a political journalist site: HUFFINGTON POST  Now this one kind of goes along with the first one but it adds to it.  


 


Then we have this one: SARA JOSEPHA HALE.  This one is mentioned in another site I went through a few days ago as a side note, so could be true :ohmy: maybe. She is mentioned again here: SARA HALE


 


I guess what I am getting at is that there are different views for the same event, which is understandable. However,  I also have to admit that I don't want to believe that my ancestors lied to me about what really happened way back when and that the government/schools are still lying about it now. 


 


 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people have ancestors they wouldn't be proud of - if they ever find out of them at all. It's not uncommon in the Western model of schooling to not talk about or otherwise cover-up something controversial, either because they think children can't understand it/won't be able to handle it or else for entirely political reasons (i.e. want to maintain an illusion of superiority or national pride in an idealised version of a country so don't say anything that would show the truth of the matter, that the country's history is soaked in the blood of genocides and stained with broken promises). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had started this thread on the belief that my ancestors were actually pretty decent people. Now I am not so sure. Let me do some more in depth checking:

 

So I found an interview with one of the Wampanoag Indian Historians and he pretty much confirms the 1621 tale with a little bit of differences:  WAMPANOAG

 

Then we get this one from a political journalist site: HUFFINGTON POST  Now this one kind of goes along with the first one but it adds to it.  

 

Then we have this one: SARA JOSEPHA HALE.  This one is mentioned in another site I went through a few days ago as a side note, so could be true :ohmy: maybe. She is mentioned again here: SARA HALE

 

I guess what I am getting at is that there are different views for the same event, which is understandable. However,  I also have to admit that I don't want to believe that my ancestors lied to me about what really happened way back when and that the government/schools are still lying about it now.

 

They are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of feel like a two faced b**ch.   In one thread I say happy Thanksgiving in another its like screw it. :rolleyes: but to be honest this is the thread where my real feelings show.  sort of. I mean I get the whole IDEA of Thanksgiving: everyone giving thanks, a peaceful time to celebrate, get together with family. etc.  It would be all well and good IF it was based on something true.  I mean it's somewhat true, depending on which story you believe.  :rolleyes:  I am believing the indian one: HERE  and HERE and the unbiased one HERE. :rolleyes:  if you can believe what you get over the internet.  :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first modern thanksgivings are pretty loosely associated with the 1600s. they were celebrated as harvest feasts and had the pilgrim

back story added on later, the way many modern holidays are cemented in questionable history after the fact.

 

in the last century or so it's been a food festival that basically starts the Christmas season.

 

if that makes you feel

any better about your anestors. none of mine came over on the mayflower. not that there's anything wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first modern thanksgivings are pretty loosely associated with the 1600s. they were celebrated as harvest feasts and had the pilgrim

back story added on later, the way many modern holidays are cemented in questionable history after the fact.

 

in the last century or so it's been a food festival that basically starts the Christmas season.

 

if that makes you feel

any better about your anestors. none of mine came over on the mayflower. not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

It's the questionable history that has me angry :angry: 

 

yes, commercialization to cover up the bloody mess of the holiday

 

It's not that, that has me upset: I could care less if we came first, second, or hundredth.  I just don't like being lied to.  :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fwiw I doubt you were deliberately lied to. legend fades to myth. I'm sure my teachers believed the things they taught. I'm pretty sure the people who handed down and wrote down stories wrote what they believed to be, from their perspective, true. and through the centuries and years and days, perspective and understanding changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Elgee locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...