-
Cloud of Witnesses
January 28, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Obama’s Gettysburg Address?
December 20, 2012 | 72 comments
-
Glamour of Evil or Glimmer of Hope?
May 2, 2012 | 47 comments
-
Cheapening the Peace Prize Eight Days a Week
March 16, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Catch-22 Revisited
February 24, 2012 | 70 comments
Another Perspective
Pilgrims and Indians and the Burden of History
Whatever the myth, giving thanks in good times and in bad.
The only Native American writer I know gave permission for a literary journal to republish thoughts about Thanksgiving that she had first corralled a few years ago, and reading them was an illuminating experience. Terra Trevor reminded me why American Indians are not necessarily as sanguine about Thanksgiving celebrations as I am. She also got me hoping that a few words of my own might ease the burden sometimes imposed by our cultural touchstones.
For people in the circles through which Terra moves with easy grace, it is not the giving of thanks that rankles, but the lingering myth of pilgrims in the New World having celebrated the First Thanksgiving with Wampanoag Indians near Plymouth Rock in the autumn of 1621. Although that multi-day festival is almost always taught as a shining example of cross-cultural cooperation, its common position at the head of any chronology of thankful actions also implies that Chief Massasoit and his people learned gratitude from a motley band of separatists who fled Europe over differences with the Church of England.
Framed that way, with a metaphorical trophy up for grabs, any attention paid to Puritan “first comers” seems arrogant, because people have been giving thanks as far back as ancestral memory goes, and not just for good harvests. Remember the story of Jesus healing ten lepers, only one of whom returns to thank him, at which point Jesus asks “Were not all ten made whole?” It was a rebuke to those who fail to acknowledge blessings, and it dates back about 2,000 years. We should not then be surprised if activists today take little comfort in knowing that the Wampanoag were part of the most famous thanksgiving in America, because those same activists have been striving to correct the misimpression that American Indians learned gratitude from strangers wearing buckled shoes.
Marketing professionals might cite clumsy branding for aggravating tensions here. Poor labeling is not a problem unique to “The First Thanksgiving,” but that event has more of an image problem than the equally mislabeled “Dark Ages” between the fall of Rome and the rise of the so-called “Enlightenment.”
Observing that our civic calendar braids Native American Heritage Month with Thanksgiving, my friend wrote ruefully about children who “remember the Indians” by making construction paper headdresses in colors utterly alien to real eagle feathers or the regalia for which those feathers are sometimes used. It was an anecdote drawn from personal experience, when her then seven-year-old son recognized the absurdity of pink and purple in the headdresses that his friends were making. At that age, Terra wrote, it was not his job to carry the weight of something simultaneously funny and sad, and so she shouldered the burden for him. Thoughts written years later suggest that she still carries that weight.
Easing her burden requires a lever and emotional distance enough to stand near the load rather than under it. With respect to the evocative memory around which Terra built an essay, for example, you do not have to be Native American to recognize the unlikelihood of finding eagle feathers in DayGlo colors. On the other hand, it requires rare seriousness to pursue realism in art projects for young children. Pink and purple headdresses made by second graders are not true to life, but neither are they conscious attempts to trivialize ceremonial regalia.
The harvest celebration of 1621 gets good press because the Puritans were greatly relieved at surviving their first year in the Americas with Wampanoag help, but the lingering impact of that event owes little to subsequent conflicts between colonists and Indian tribes. Collective memory simply acknowledges that when history whistles a tune, oral tradition dances with the written record — and who better to acknowledge that reality than citizens of a nation with founding documents? While the Wampanoag had been celebrating before they ever met Europeans, it was the pilgrims who kept written records of their activities.
It might also help to remind ourselves that modern celebrations of Thanksgiving draw as much from official Thanksgiving proclamations by Presidents George Washington (1789) and Abraham Lincoln (1863) as they do from hand-shaped turkeys and other juvenile renderings of pilgrim life in the New World. Importantly, President Lincoln counseled gratitude even while steering the nation through a devastating war. The Judeo-Christian foundations of his moral reasoning — like Washington’s before him — were accepted by large majorities of Americans in all walks of life, whether slave or free.
Composer Roger Miller understood that. Years after “King of the Road” put him on the musical map, Miller brought The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to Broadway in the musical Big River, with critics everywhere marveling at his fidelity to the novel by Mark Twain and his apparent grasp of our national soul. One of the most memorable songs in a show full of them was a hymn of thanksgiving sung by slaves. For me that song ranks as the most effective of several possible rebuttals to anyone convinced that our national day of thanks should instead be a day of mourning and repentance.
The lyrics of “How Blest We Are” are worth reprinting in full:
How blest we are
as children of a God so good and true
to understand His moving hand
and love for me and you!
How blest we are as children of
a God whose love is real
enough to touch each one of us,
is part of Him I feel.
I honor thee,
I honor thee
to whom my love is vowed;
How blessed be
forever we
are bound to him as now.
Anyone who has ever heard that anthem knows that it speaks of and to a truth that validates thanksgiving everywhere. The lyrics wrap a mysterious kernel of forgiveness and forbearance in a blanket of gratitude that knows nothing of Pilgrims or Indians, but can heal misunderstandings between their descendents if we take it to heart, and not just at the time of year when leaves crunch underfoot, geese scissor overhead, and cooler temperatures leech some of the blue from the daytime sky.
About the Author
Patrick O’Hannigan is a writer in North Carolina.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Patrick O'Hannigan
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/22/the-burden-of-history
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Razing Reagan
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Public Nuisances
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
c. j. acworth| 11.22.11 @ 6:28AM
This is the first time I ever heard of anyone implying that the indians (native americans? original inhabitants?) learned gratitude from the pilgrims. I certainly was never taught or believed that. Just shows how words and phrases take on different meanings depending on the hearers background. For a real good account of just how grateful to the indians we should be, I suggest two books by Charles C. Mann, "1491 New revelations of the Americas befoe Columbus" and "1493 Uncovering the new world Columbus created". Fascinating and entertaining accounts of how the "discovery" of the Americas truely transformed the world.
PaulyD| 11.22.11 @ 9:38AM
Yes, the Pilgrims were giving thanks to the Indians, not vice versa, because the Indians (particulary Squanto) had saved the Pilgrims lives by teaching them how to survive in the New World.
Also the Pilgrims were not Puritans, they were Separatists, a crucial distinction that has ramifications that stretch all the way to the First Amendment to the Constitution over 150 years later. Research the history.
S. Bloomdahl| 11.22.11 @ 9:54AM
No, the Pilgirms were giving thanks to God!
A. C. Santore| 11.22.11 @ 10:10AM
PRECISELY!
There is no more silly historical corruption than the notion that the Pilgrims were thanking the Native Americans!
The first time I saw that came from an anti-religion liberal, and it made me angry.
The thought that it 'has legs" makes me angry still.
PaulyD| 11.22.11 @ 10:35AM
Yes, yes, you and S. Bloomdahl are right. I'm sorry to leave that out.
But they invited the Indians to thank them too, for the reasons I described.
Bill| 11.23.11 @ 3:03PM
The Separatists, as their name suggests, were Congregationalists who were opposed to the Anglican Church, seeing it as not legitimate, and too similar to the Roman Catholic Church.
Puritans were Congregationalists who were not opposed to the Anglican Church, and thought of it as a legitimate religion.
Sometime in the 18th Century most Separatists and Puritans abandoned their Congregationalism and became Presbyterians. I still haven't gotten the full story on that.
Margie| 11.23.11 @ 3:19PM
Fasting forward to Samuel Adams:
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds His subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come!" - After signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
"He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all. Our forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you is reserved the honor of leveling the popery of politics. They opened the Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion." - Speech at the State House, Philadelphia, August 1, 1776
Read more: http://www.revolutionary-war-a.....z1eYsVpb56
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.22.11 @ 7:05AM
Whether Terra Trevor is right or wrong we should all give thanks for the Constitution. Without it Terra Trevor wouldn't be able to express her opinion. Neither would I.
The politically elite would rule the world and history would simply be to their beckoning.
By the way, I started school in 1956 and not once did I hear that the Pilgrims "helped" the Indians. It was presented that the Indians actually helped the Pilgrims and that's how the Pilgrims made it through. I've never heard the Terra Trevor version.
Darcy| 11.22.11 @ 8:03AM
Are we ever--and I mean ever--going to get past the point of revisionist whining? Now they're even making things up to whine about. Here's something I would be thankful for: a return of the masculine virtues to the teaching of history.
daddio| 11.22.11 @ 10:52AM
Amen, a lot of this crap started when men were driven from the schools.
Rosie| 11.22.11 @ 1:06PM
Are you and Darcy for real?
godisanenglishman| 11.22.11 @ 9:27AM
Separatists (aka Pilgrims) were not Puritans - they came later and founded Boston.
Vern Crisler| 11.22.11 @ 9:31AM
The Pilgrims were giving thanks that they had gotten rid of socialism, that conceit of Plato. It's too bad Indians and settlers eventually couldn't get along, but a lot of it was due to the European powers stirring up hostilities in their bloody rivalries. It led to dreadful consequences -- Indian massacres of English settlers, English reprisals, etc. It was all a tragic business, not easily comprehended within the narrow categories of political correctness.
JEM| 11.22.11 @ 11:39AM
Actually, not correct. The Pilgrims were actually pawns in a fast flowing political world of indian alliances and conflicts. To the extent the pilgrims could be off assistance to the indians they were welcomed and relations were essentially peaceful. It was not until later into the 17th century when their own mounting power rebalanced the equation. The European influence was limited at this point.
The fact of the matter is that the indians of the area had been fighting and conquesting back and forth all along. Then our ancestors showed up and became another group in the mix. That in the end we proved the most powerful is no different than what had been going on in America for years before we arrived. Our diseases helped us as well, as the germ tradeoff seems to have favored us.
As to suggesting we gave the indians the concept of thanksgiving is bizarre, it was certainly never taught that way. That it was referred to as the first Thanksgiving in the US memory is accurate. We don't know how many such celebrations the indians had before us, but they weren't ours.
Vern Crisler| 11.22.11 @ 11:48AM
What is not correct? Are you denying (e.g.) that the French & Indian wars did not lead to the French stirring up Indian tribes to massacre English settlers?
JEM| 11.22.11 @ 12:00PM
No - I am saying that it didn't occur until much later on a grand scale - there were well defined tribal conflicts ongoing in the area prior to the Pigrims arrival. Obviously as all the European powers influence increased you had the French, English and the Dutch stirring up trouble. Initially the Pigrims were utilized as balancing force in Indian tribal conflicts.
Vern Crisler| 11.22.11 @ 2:25PM
I'm still not sure what you are saying is incorrect in my post. Where did I say that Indians were not at war with each other prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims?
JEM| 11.22.11 @ 3:27PM
I took from your post that the Pilgrims eventual falling into conflict with the Indians was the result of European interference - namely French pot stirring. The Pilgrims fell into conflict much earlier with the Indians based upon their own success and expansion as the indians began to realize that the Pilgrims weren't so much a balancer of power as a power in and of themselves.
The real French intransgience is actually much later in the game probably starting in the late 1600s/early 1700s as the colonists started pushing in off the coast. The Pilgrims started falling out with the local indians in probably the 1650s-1660s time frame. The French were never substantially on the coasts of new england. More inland toward the lakes and the Mississippi river system.
JEM| 11.22.11 @ 3:56PM
It was probably my interpretation of the word settlers which I inferred to be Pilgrims.
Bill| 11.23.11 @ 3:13PM
The French and Indian War occurred long after the conflict between the Indians of New England and the English colonists had begun to fight one another.
Central New England, out of the Connecticut River Valley and the valleys of the various rivers of Connecticut that emptied into Long Island Sound, was empty. The Indians used it as hunting grounds, but did not have anything more than temporary hunting shanty towns in the interior. The English colonists moved into the interior. One of their settlements was Deerfield, Massachusetts, which was on the very northwest edge of settled territory. In 1704, the Abnaki Indians who lived north of there, near the St. Lawrence River (their main town was St. Francis), raided and killed many settlers. For another 50 years the whites seethed, and finally in 1757 or thereabouts, during the French and Indian War, Rogers' Rangers (American colonists fighting under American leadership with the British Army) raided St. Francis and burned it to the ground.
At some point between the Deerfield Massacre and the St. Francis Raid, American rangers made their way up the Gaspe Peninsula in eastern Canada and attacked the French fort of Louisbourg to discourage the French from agitating the Indian tribes of New England.
Vern Crisler | 11.25.11 @ 2:53PM
The French and Indian wars (plural) did not begin in 1757. That was just the last one. The French and Indians raided Schenectady, NY in 1690, which was the start of 70 years of savage war between the French and English for control of North America. "In America these wars were called King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War, and the French and Indian War. The final war gave its name to the whole seventy-year period of conflict in the New World..." (Francis Russell, *The French & Indian Wars*, American Heritage, pp. 12-13).
The Indians excelled in brutality and deserve utter condemnation for their evil acts during this time. However, they were being goaded by the French, who bear nearly as much blame for the cruelty these savages meted out in their raids on towns and settlements.
During the days of the Pilgrims (1620), the French and English were not at war. Europe was at war in the 30 years war but this was over religious issues, not colonization of America. Same with the English civil wars.
The main problem prior to the French and Indian wars was local tribal conflicts. The Pequot war began in the 1630s over conflicts between the Pequot and Mohegan. There was also the Powhatan wars and many other conflicts. However, the savagery and brutality was not nearly as great as it was when the French began stirring up the tribes.
So despite the few moments of peace with the Pilgrims, the settlers ended up facing constant war with Indians over the years.
Petronius| 11.22.11 @ 10:49AM
A person's view of history reflects predisposition juxtaposed with what one is taught. That inclination is natural. But we have seen prejudicial poisons added to the mix lately, stemming from the nihilism of the 60's which runs rampant in the academy. See yesterdays thread on the British Empire. Every year Thanksgiving gets another autopsy on the part of more aggrieved misfits who's only goal is ruining the celebration for the rest of us as a means of remaking the world as they would have it. Those people are thankful that the Orwellian method works too well. So we have a decision to make. Wrest control of Our culture back from them by whatever means are necessary or face a future with nothing to celebrate until we perish and the 60's trash are dancing on our graves having turned what was the greatest nation on earth into a modern incarnation of a Roman circus.
JEM| 11.22.11 @ 11:44AM
The alternative is to ignore them with good cheer, and work to eliminate elected officials via the ballot box when they become too beholden to the whackos.
I intend to give thanks Thursday, with zero regret or guilt. And no one around me will do otherwise. To those with a different agenda, if you cross me, look out, you will get a smile and my pity. For your world is so small that all you can do is tear down what has been built so as to accomodate your small opinion of your self.
Rich Rostrom| 11.22.11 @ 4:28PM
I have never seen any suggestion that the Indians didn't have any concepts of giving thanks to God or the Great Spirit, or that the Pilgrims taught them anything of the kind. The Pilgrims' feast was _their_ Thanksgiving, and the Indians were invited guests.
I've seen negativism about the Pilgrim Thanksgiving: that as portrayed it fails to give proper due to the Indians for their aid to the Pilgrims, or that it whitewashes the Pilgrims who were invaders who later killed Indians and seized their lands.
But the specific claim cited by Mr. Lord: never.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.22.11 @ 5:08PM
My childhood memory of the first thanksgiving is the Indians teaching the Europeans to drop a dead fish along the rows of corn.
The Europeans responded by teaching the Indians how to shoot a wild turkey out of a tree.
The Indians were trapped into tribal "taboo". i.e. fear of anything different...fear.
They had been trapped for thousands of years with no end in sight.
c. j. acworth| 11.22.11 @ 6:16PM
Actually Ken, in one of the books I mentioned in my post at 6:28, "1491", the author points out that there is no evidence that the indians fertilized their fields with fish at all. "Squanto", the indian interpreter had been taken captive to Europe and England years before, where he learned English, and in all probability somewhere along the line saw farmers in Europe using fish as fertilizer. The Pilgrims were not actually supposed to be farmers, apparently, but fishermen, so they didn't know the trick.
Fango Shreet| 11.22.11 @ 5:45PM
>implies that Chief Massasoit and his people learned gratitude
What the -- !? I have never before heard that 'interpretation' of Thanksgiving. I smell a strawman.
Patrick| 11.22.11 @ 6:04PM
Not a straw man, Fango. It's an accurate paraphrase of some Native American objections to mainstream Thanksgiving celebrations. I don't waste time with straw man, except for occasionally exposing them to scorn.
Marv| 11.23.11 @ 2:52PM
I'm afraid I have to agree with Fango here. That is the most glaring aspect of the article, it's "huh?" factor. Perhaps it isn't YOUR straw man Mr. O'Hannigan, but you seem to be citing someone else's straw man. It strikes me as an unknown element in my more than a half century of Thanksgivings. Of course, a "straw man" may have actually occurred in someone's experience, but this aspect--teaching the Indians the virtue of gratitude is not only something I and many others have never heard of, but a daft-sounding idea to begin with.
Beyond all this relations between the different peoples in the clash of civilizations that inevitably ensued once Europeans knew about, traveled to, and colonized the Americas--is obviously complicated by human failings. To whatever degree there may have been a moment of truth, of beauty, in the interactions of these two very diverse groups, this is worthy of celebration. Even if it is idealized out of all reality or historicity, the idealized image is something to be aspired to, living in gratitude in the face of our Creator, loving our neighbor who is also created in His image, however different that neighbor looks from us. These are all things that live in the cultural story of "The First Thanksgiving" and are evoked in our annual celebration together as a nation. There is so much good here, why find things to be gloomy about?
Patrick| 11.23.11 @ 3:22PM
"There is so much good here, why find things to be gloomy about?" -- That's precisely my point, Marv. Lincoln's and Washington's, too. It seems we agree with each other.
Meanwhile, the "straw man" accusation misses the point. I didn't say that our First Thanksgiving story actually teaches that Native Americans learned gratitude from Pilgrims. You and I recognize that as a silly conceit, but more than a few Native Americans see that implied by what the rest of us do. For them, it's not a straw man; it's evidence of an unbridgeable gap between cultures. I think they're wrong to see it that way, and to wax sorrowful over an allegedly condescending implication. My essay was, in part, a bridge-building attempt. Happy Thanksgiving!
POST American| 11.22.11 @ 10:34PM
---Great piece.
BTW, our sources on the ground report,
as part of the UN 'Agenda 21' world genocide
op ---history volumes, esp. those written
before the complete takeover of the
history by Globalist circa 1910 ---are being
rooted out and dumped from libraries across
the world.
The ultimate aim is to, basically, get rid
of ALLLL history pre-UN. That's right.
ALLL national, cultural, religious and
even personal histories.
NO MORE history-------.
The excuse is they need more space for
coffee lounges and PCs.
---Keeping them 'wired' you might say.
---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------
-----------------------about to MAKE HISTORY
RetUSA1/75| 11.24.11 @ 1:31AM
Well said. What I would wish to do on this day of Thanksgiving is to go back in time leading a rifle and heavy weapons platoon(s) of Rangers attached to any tribe of American Indians, and smoke some European bags.
Lorraine Shulman| 11.24.11 @ 6:10PM
Stop the intellectual rhetoric. We have blood on our hands and this whole argument is about the guilt of trying to forget it. God Bless the Native American tribes still living today. Support them and this is the best way to show thanks.
RetUSA1/75| 11.25.11 @ 6:18AM
No guilt here, Ma'am. My grandfather on my father's side came to Ellis Island from Ireland in the early 1900's. My grandmother on my mother's side came to Ellis Island from Poland in the early 20's. My grandfather on my father's side married a French Canadian immigrant. My grandmother on my mother's side married a fellow Polish immigrant. Again, no guilt here. Merry Christmas.
Fred| 11.25.11 @ 1:48PM
OK Lorraine, which Indian tribes should feel guilty about raiding, killing, and committing atrocities against other Indian tribes? Oh yeah, ALL of them. That's simply the way human interactions worked back then. JEM was absolutely right. There were all kinds of intertribal political machinations and power struggles going on. Our ancestors simply became, as Bing West put it in another context, the strongest tribe. I, for one, feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever about that. Do you really think the Indians would have hesitated to exterminate our ancestors if they could have once our ancestors became a threat?
Katherine| 10.8.12 @ 5:58PM
I found your article while trying to better name Columbus Day. I ruled out Explorers' Day, since most were marauders, and thought to research the Pilgrim/American Indian feast of Thanksgiving. Your article was enlightening, and I was near tears at the end. I will post this on my Facebook wall when our traditional Thanksgiving feast is near. Everyone should read these words. I also will learn more about Terra Trevor. Thank you for the article and for introducing me to Ms. Trevor's name.
Katherine| 10.8.12 @ 6:19PM
I just read other comments in this thread. I responded to the article only. The previous comments are old and I suspect mine will be lost and maybe only read by Mr. O'Hannigan. Maybe not. But if they are read, PLEASE understand that I do not engage in online word slinging. If you don't like my words, just ignore them. Thank you.