David:
This week most of us will be meeting with family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving. Most of us will eat too much turkey, and spend the day watching football, or just catching up with relatives.
But should Thanksgiving be abolished, or turned into something else? Is it based on false historical stories to cover our past? This writer thinks so:
http://www.alternet.org/story/68170/why_we_shouldn't_celebrate_thanksgiving
Doug:
This week David will project his world onto all of us, and tell us that our world is just like his. Many people won't have food to eat, or will be protecting their native land, or protesting the impending dismantling of our democracy, or will have to work to make "Black Friday" be the fantastic day of consumerism that it is surely to be. Oh, but wait... a dissenting article? Could it be?
That is a well-written argument. And there are a lot of people who find the idea of the fictional "dinner with the Indians" to be a disgusting whitewashing of history. But, hey! Let's eat! All that P.C. B.S. makes me sad. No, not sad... angry! Make Thanksgiving Great Again! Quit mentioning genocide when we are trying to have a relaxing day off, and just pass the cranberry sauce. JK
David:
Two things. To use your favorite words, the article above is full of false equivalences, and outright untruths. Seriously, comparing 500 years of cultural conflict with the brief history of Hitler? And second, many people just don't care to know the truth, or to look at things in context. In this blog, I thought we might evaluate the true story of Thanksgiving, and shed light on how events over the past 500 years can help us to be a better society in 2016.
Doug:
I think you misunderstood the analogy with Hitler. The author asks you to imagine that Hitler won, and centuries later they celebrate a Thanksgiving. It is meant to be a provocative "thought experiment." But I guess you have to understand it, and be willing to empathize, rather than dismissing it before even contemplating it. Can you imagine your descendants sitting down with the descendants of winning Nazis and giving thanks? Could such a thought experiment help one to see the "truth" of Thanksgiving?
Your storytelling should be interesting. But I feel a major episode of brotherplaining coming on...
David:
First, we should discredit the myth of the "noble savage". Before European settlers ever arrived in the new world, native tribes were in a constant and violent struggle against each other, particularly in our SouthWest and throughout Central America. Anthropology shows us that 90% of skeletons in that region have marks of violence and projectile points. The state of affairs before Europeans arrived was as 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes described it: "war of all against all."
Doug:
You know that people actually study this today, right? Did you watch a Disney cartoon? If you form your opinion of people by watching cartoons, or the Lone Ranger, then yes, you might need to update your caricatures. Read what you are writing. Do your words seem that different from humans today? Do you think indigenous people were much different from any society in existence today, including ours? But do continue with your unbiased myth-busting.
David:
There are people who study this. And they don't all subscribe to your views. From the book, North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence, a compendium of papers from 14 leading scholars on the subject:
"These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life.
Doug:
That is substituting the "myth of the noble savage" with the "myth of the savage savage" which is equally biased. My point was that reality is probably closer to our lives today. But I do appreciate it that those authors are labeled "leading scholars" when they agree with you. When they don't agree with you, you might want to distrust their data, methods, and motivations. If the "number of leading scholars" determine their trustworthiness, then there are many topics that are settled.
David:
So, if a scholar or scientist doesn't agree with you, then you can discount their data and research. I'll remember that when we discuss climate change. Your opinion doesn't explain the 90% of skeletons that have marks of violence on them. I don't believe that is true of our lives today. I did a Google search of reviews of this book, and found only positive reviews from multiple university reviewers. I did not find any negative reviews of the work. Said one:
"As is often the case, myths do not die easily and it is doubtful that the conclusions reached in this book will be readily accepted in certain circles outside of academia, where they might be misconstrued as a sinister attempt to provide after-the-fact justifications for the Euro-American conquest of the Americas. To avoid such false accusations, the editors added a concluding chapter discussing the ethical issues raised by this book."
Now, back to history. In 1532, Pizzaro landed in what is now Peru to find the war-like Incan population halved by recent civil war. Had he arrived just a decade sooner, his Spanish forces would have been crushed by a much larger force than he found at that time.
When Cortes arrived in Mexico in 1519 he found an Aztec empire flush with gold. The Spanish during the 1500-1700's were less interested in land, than they were with the riches and resources the New World could provide. Much like the Vikings in Europe, the Spanish were there for plunder, and plunder they did. Allying themselves with other natives who were hostile to the Aztecs, Cortes and his men spent 8 months inflicting losses on the once mighty Aztec nation. But Cortes didn't conquer the Aztecs with 500 Spaniards. He had 500 men and 50,000 Natives who were enemies to the Aztecs as his allies. When he returned a year later, smallpox and famine had decimated the natives, and the Spanish made quick work eliminating the remainder in brutal fashion.
We see this pattern repeated numerous times through the history of the Americas: Explorers make landfall and interact with the indigenous peoples. When they return several years later, the Native populations have been decimated by plague or smallpox. Disease was the main killer of vast numbers of Natives during the 1500s-1700s.
Doug:
You say "explorers," others say "conquerors" but let's not let myths get in the way of a good story.
David:
Some say "myth" while others say "history". When things are written down, researched, and accepted by scholars, you can stop using the word "myth".
"Overall, hundreds of thousands of Indians died of European diseases during the first two centuries following contact. In terms of death tolls, smallpox killed the greatest number of Indians, followed by measles, influenza, and bubonic plague." ~ From the Navajo website, Native American Netroots.
Doug:
This week most of us will be meeting with family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving. Most of us will eat too much turkey, and spend the day watching football, or just catching up with relatives.
But should Thanksgiving be abolished, or turned into something else? Is it based on false historical stories to cover our past? This writer thinks so:
http://www.alternet.org/story/68170/why_we_shouldn't_celebrate_thanksgiving
Doug:
This week David will project his world onto all of us, and tell us that our world is just like his. Many people won't have food to eat, or will be protecting their native land, or protesting the impending dismantling of our democracy, or will have to work to make "Black Friday" be the fantastic day of consumerism that it is surely to be. Oh, but wait... a dissenting article? Could it be?
That is a well-written argument. And there are a lot of people who find the idea of the fictional "dinner with the Indians" to be a disgusting whitewashing of history. But, hey! Let's eat! All that P.C. B.S. makes me sad. No, not sad... angry! Make Thanksgiving Great Again! Quit mentioning genocide when we are trying to have a relaxing day off, and just pass the cranberry sauce. JK
Two things. To use your favorite words, the article above is full of false equivalences, and outright untruths. Seriously, comparing 500 years of cultural conflict with the brief history of Hitler? And second, many people just don't care to know the truth, or to look at things in context. In this blog, I thought we might evaluate the true story of Thanksgiving, and shed light on how events over the past 500 years can help us to be a better society in 2016.
Doug:
I think you misunderstood the analogy with Hitler. The author asks you to imagine that Hitler won, and centuries later they celebrate a Thanksgiving. It is meant to be a provocative "thought experiment." But I guess you have to understand it, and be willing to empathize, rather than dismissing it before even contemplating it. Can you imagine your descendants sitting down with the descendants of winning Nazis and giving thanks? Could such a thought experiment help one to see the "truth" of Thanksgiving?
Your storytelling should be interesting. But I feel a major episode of brotherplaining coming on...
David:
First, we should discredit the myth of the "noble savage". Before European settlers ever arrived in the new world, native tribes were in a constant and violent struggle against each other, particularly in our SouthWest and throughout Central America. Anthropology shows us that 90% of skeletons in that region have marks of violence and projectile points. The state of affairs before Europeans arrived was as 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes described it: "war of all against all."
Doug:
You know that people actually study this today, right? Did you watch a Disney cartoon? If you form your opinion of people by watching cartoons, or the Lone Ranger, then yes, you might need to update your caricatures. Read what you are writing. Do your words seem that different from humans today? Do you think indigenous people were much different from any society in existence today, including ours? But do continue with your unbiased myth-busting.
David:
There are people who study this. And they don't all subscribe to your views. From the book, North American Indigenous Warfare and Ritual Violence, a compendium of papers from 14 leading scholars on the subject:
"These essays document specific acts of Native American violence across the North American continent. Including contributions from anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, and ethnographers, they argue not only that violence existed but also that it was an important and frequently celebrated component of Amerindian life.
Doug:
That is substituting the "myth of the noble savage" with the "myth of the savage savage" which is equally biased. My point was that reality is probably closer to our lives today. But I do appreciate it that those authors are labeled "leading scholars" when they agree with you. When they don't agree with you, you might want to distrust their data, methods, and motivations. If the "number of leading scholars" determine their trustworthiness, then there are many topics that are settled.
David:
So, if a scholar or scientist doesn't agree with you, then you can discount their data and research. I'll remember that when we discuss climate change. Your opinion doesn't explain the 90% of skeletons that have marks of violence on them. I don't believe that is true of our lives today. I did a Google search of reviews of this book, and found only positive reviews from multiple university reviewers. I did not find any negative reviews of the work. Said one:
"As is often the case, myths do not die easily and it is doubtful that the conclusions reached in this book will be readily accepted in certain circles outside of academia, where they might be misconstrued as a sinister attempt to provide after-the-fact justifications for the Euro-American conquest of the Americas. To avoid such false accusations, the editors added a concluding chapter discussing the ethical issues raised by this book."
Now, back to history. In 1532, Pizzaro landed in what is now Peru to find the war-like Incan population halved by recent civil war. Had he arrived just a decade sooner, his Spanish forces would have been crushed by a much larger force than he found at that time.
 |
| Machu Picchu of the Incas |
We see this pattern repeated numerous times through the history of the Americas: Explorers make landfall and interact with the indigenous peoples. When they return several years later, the Native populations have been decimated by plague or smallpox. Disease was the main killer of vast numbers of Natives during the 1500s-1700s.
Doug:
You say "explorers," others say "conquerors" but let's not let myths get in the way of a good story.
David:
Some say "myth" while others say "history". When things are written down, researched, and accepted by scholars, you can stop using the word "myth".
"Overall, hundreds of thousands of Indians died of European diseases during the first two centuries following contact. In terms of death tolls, smallpox killed the greatest number of Indians, followed by measles, influenza, and bubonic plague." ~ From the Navajo website, Native American Netroots.
Doug:
Quoting a diary is not usually considered a method of debunking myths. But the blog you quote is probably correct. But do you think because they were conquerors that it isn't also be true that Native Americans largely died from disease carried by the conquerors? Both are true.
David:
Ah. Now you're discounting Native American's take on these events. Even they can't be trusted if they don't fit your narrative.
But the story of Thanksgiving begins just after this time period in New England. Pilgrims landed in Cape Cod in 1620. One year later, in 1621, half had died, and the remainder survived in part thanks to the Wampanoag Indians that inhabited the area. In that year, they did hold a three day feast which was known as a harvest festival. This was a celebration observed in England and brought along with the settlers. The Wampanoags were present at this feast, and outnumbered the pilgrims by a 2-1 margin. There were occasional days of thanksgiving, but this original celebration was not intended for that purpose.
The Continental Congress had proposed a national day of thanksgiving, but it was not until the mid-19th century that many individual states had adopted the practice of having an annual day just for this purpose. Lincoln was the first president to proclaim the last Thursday in November as a national day known as Thanksgiving, and has been celebrated every year since, with the date changing to the 4th Thursday in November in 1939.
Through those early years of settlement, the settlers and natives near Plymouth lived in harmony and cooperation. But not all colonies and their local natives were on such good terms. Warfare between Europeans and Indians was common in the seventeenth century. In 1622, the Powhatan Confederacy nearly wiped out the struggling Jamestown colony. Further north, English forces annihilated the Pequots in 1636-1637. 1764 marked the beginning of the French and Indian wars, which pitted the English against the French and their Indian allies, particularly the war-like Mohawks. You might use the term "immigrants" or "refugees" to describe the pilgrims. But that would mean the Natives were playing the role of nativists, trying to limit the spread of these immigrants. Yes, for your world-view, you should call pilgrims and Protestants "conquerors".
Doug:
Not to interrupt your story, but just noting that you like the adjective "war-like." How many wars do you need to start before we can use that word to describe someone? If someone invades one, or two countries, can we use the adjective "war-like" to describe them? Or is this a coded word that means other things? It is important to explore such word choice because it gives insight into biases, perhaps hidden ones that the speaker is not even aware of.
David:
While there were over 300 Indian Tribes, the Comanches, Apaches, Haidas, Sioux, and Mohawks were known not as farmers, hunters, or nomads, but as warriors who raided other tribes for food, goods, and slaves. They began their training for battle as children. So, I believe it is safe to say those particular tribes were war-like. Much as the Spartans were war-like in ancient Greece. To be war-like means your society is in a constant preparedness for war.
Doug:
Ok, then you agree that our society is equally war-like. I just wanted to make sure that your use of the term "war-like" was just underlining the fact that their society was just like ours.
David:
I don't see many children in official training for war, here. I'm sure you do, through your special liberal-view glasses.
It was during the 1760's -1780's when the native tribes realized that the expansionist colonist were a much greater threat than the British military. The colonists had come to stay. In 1763, the Ottawa chief Pontiac formed a coalition of Indian forces and launched attacks against settlers. During the Revolutionary War, many native tribes joined with the British and established themselves as enemies to the Americans. After the war, many Americans had little regard for Natives, and saw them as a continuing enemy to expansion.
Doug:
Same as it ever was. This could be said today about the Dakota Access Pipeline and the inhuman treatment of Native Americans.
David:
So you believe that the US government, under Obama, is treating the Native Americans inhumanely? What did you ask Obama to do about that? Because you do realize they are still under government control.
Doug:
I think our whole society treats Native Americans inhumanely. I thought that was what this week's blog was about?
David:
It appears you are speaking for yourself, the people you know, and the US Government.
It was after the war, when superior weaponry led to mass destruction of the Native populations, and it was really at this time where subjugation and/or destruction of the Indians became the policy.
The History Channel notes: "Suspicion and hostility, stemming from technological and cultural differences as well as mutual feelings of superiority, have permeated relations betweenNative American and non-Indians in North America. Intertribal antagonisms among the Indians, and nationalistic rivalries, bad faith, and expansionist desires on the part of non-Indians exacerbated these tensions. The resulting white-Indian conflicts often took a particularly brutal turn and ultimately resulted in the near destruction of the indigenous peoples."
Doug:
Ok, you convinced me: we should not celebrate Thanksgiving.
David:
Thanksgiving is not a celebration of the unity between Indians and pilgrims. It is a day to be thankful for what we have. When Lincoln declared a National Day of Thanks, it was designed to bring the country together in unity. Even though we had been through a brutal civil war, we had much to be thankful for. Lincoln, and every president since, has used Thanksgiving Day as a time for reflection, thanks, and unity. You'd like to use it as a day to acknowledge and highlight differences. If you had a Native-American name, it would be Sour-Like-Lemons. The pilgrims had survived in 1621 with great help from the Native Americans, and they celebrated with thanks. Perhaps you have nothing to express thanks for, and perhaps that's because you have no one to express your thanks to. But you don't have to celebrate anything, because this is America. There were great struggles throughout our history, and numerous wars and strife, yet we, as a country, can still come together to celebrate the common virtues and values we share, and be thankful for the plentiful life we, as Americans, enjoy.
Doug:
I think I'll let your words stand as a reminder of how privilege tells people that they should be thankful regardless of their individual battles.
David:
It's sad to think that you have nothing to be thankful for. You have a very heartless world-view. We can all find things to be thankful for.
Doug:
You tell em!
David: If you really want to help Native Americans, you should understand the plight they face today, not 200 years ago. We still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs that completely rules most of the Native tribes as "wards of the Federal Government". They have the highest rate of poverty of any minority group, suicide is the leading cause of death among Indian men, native women are two and a half times more likely to be raped than the national average and gang violence affects American Indian youth more than any other group. This has all been brought about by the US government managing their affairs. Perhaps you can spend your time Thursday lobbying the government to allow these American citizens to enjoy all of the rights the rest of us can be thankful for. At least the turkey you don't eat will be thankful.
Doug:
Weird, you forgot to mention "Standing Rock" in your soliloquy. You do realize that Native Americans are Americans, right? You literally just told them to be "thankful for the plentiful life we, as Americans, enjoy."
David:
They have been US citizens since 1924, thanks to a bill passed by the Congress. However, they were not all allowed to vote until the 1970's. They still do not own their land, and cannot use their land for any purpose unless allowed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The land in question for the pipeline is not on their reservation lands. Even if it was, the use of that land is solely at the discretion of the US Government. They must protest, because under the law, they have no other recourse.While they are US citizens, they are not considered immigrants, but citizens from separate nation. They are a separate class.
As a side note, before anyone starts commenting about inaccuracies in my time-line or details, all of the historical information contained in this blog comes from Wikipedia, History.com, US History.org, and a multitude of Native-American sites from individuals and tribes. If something is amiss, write to them.
Doug:
I'm imagining that students could always add that disclaimer to their papers. "Don't blame the researcher for quoting bad sources, blame the sources!" In any event, may you, and everyone, have time this Thanksgiving to find some inner peace away from the external world, before we head back to our war-like (and necessary) battles.
David:
Ah. Now you're discounting Native American's take on these events. Even they can't be trusted if they don't fit your narrative.
But the story of Thanksgiving begins just after this time period in New England. Pilgrims landed in Cape Cod in 1620. One year later, in 1621, half had died, and the remainder survived in part thanks to the Wampanoag Indians that inhabited the area. In that year, they did hold a three day feast which was known as a harvest festival. This was a celebration observed in England and brought along with the settlers. The Wampanoags were present at this feast, and outnumbered the pilgrims by a 2-1 margin. There were occasional days of thanksgiving, but this original celebration was not intended for that purpose.
The Continental Congress had proposed a national day of thanksgiving, but it was not until the mid-19th century that many individual states had adopted the practice of having an annual day just for this purpose. Lincoln was the first president to proclaim the last Thursday in November as a national day known as Thanksgiving, and has been celebrated every year since, with the date changing to the 4th Thursday in November in 1939.
Through those early years of settlement, the settlers and natives near Plymouth lived in harmony and cooperation. But not all colonies and their local natives were on such good terms. Warfare between Europeans and Indians was common in the seventeenth century. In 1622, the Powhatan Confederacy nearly wiped out the struggling Jamestown colony. Further north, English forces annihilated the Pequots in 1636-1637. 1764 marked the beginning of the French and Indian wars, which pitted the English against the French and their Indian allies, particularly the war-like Mohawks. You might use the term "immigrants" or "refugees" to describe the pilgrims. But that would mean the Natives were playing the role of nativists, trying to limit the spread of these immigrants. Yes, for your world-view, you should call pilgrims and Protestants "conquerors".
Doug:
Not to interrupt your story, but just noting that you like the adjective "war-like." How many wars do you need to start before we can use that word to describe someone? If someone invades one, or two countries, can we use the adjective "war-like" to describe them? Or is this a coded word that means other things? It is important to explore such word choice because it gives insight into biases, perhaps hidden ones that the speaker is not even aware of.
David:
While there were over 300 Indian Tribes, the Comanches, Apaches, Haidas, Sioux, and Mohawks were known not as farmers, hunters, or nomads, but as warriors who raided other tribes for food, goods, and slaves. They began their training for battle as children. So, I believe it is safe to say those particular tribes were war-like. Much as the Spartans were war-like in ancient Greece. To be war-like means your society is in a constant preparedness for war.
Doug:
Ok, then you agree that our society is equally war-like. I just wanted to make sure that your use of the term "war-like" was just underlining the fact that their society was just like ours.
David:
I don't see many children in official training for war, here. I'm sure you do, through your special liberal-view glasses.
It was during the 1760's -1780's when the native tribes realized that the expansionist colonist were a much greater threat than the British military. The colonists had come to stay. In 1763, the Ottawa chief Pontiac formed a coalition of Indian forces and launched attacks against settlers. During the Revolutionary War, many native tribes joined with the British and established themselves as enemies to the Americans. After the war, many Americans had little regard for Natives, and saw them as a continuing enemy to expansion.
Doug:
Same as it ever was. This could be said today about the Dakota Access Pipeline and the inhuman treatment of Native Americans.
David:
So you believe that the US government, under Obama, is treating the Native Americans inhumanely? What did you ask Obama to do about that? Because you do realize they are still under government control.
Doug:
I think our whole society treats Native Americans inhumanely. I thought that was what this week's blog was about?
David:
It appears you are speaking for yourself, the people you know, and the US Government.
It was after the war, when superior weaponry led to mass destruction of the Native populations, and it was really at this time where subjugation and/or destruction of the Indians became the policy.
The History Channel notes: "Suspicion and hostility, stemming from technological and cultural differences as well as mutual feelings of superiority, have permeated relations betweenNative American and non-Indians in North America. Intertribal antagonisms among the Indians, and nationalistic rivalries, bad faith, and expansionist desires on the part of non-Indians exacerbated these tensions. The resulting white-Indian conflicts often took a particularly brutal turn and ultimately resulted in the near destruction of the indigenous peoples."
Doug:
Ok, you convinced me: we should not celebrate Thanksgiving.
David:
Thanksgiving is not a celebration of the unity between Indians and pilgrims. It is a day to be thankful for what we have. When Lincoln declared a National Day of Thanks, it was designed to bring the country together in unity. Even though we had been through a brutal civil war, we had much to be thankful for. Lincoln, and every president since, has used Thanksgiving Day as a time for reflection, thanks, and unity. You'd like to use it as a day to acknowledge and highlight differences. If you had a Native-American name, it would be Sour-Like-Lemons. The pilgrims had survived in 1621 with great help from the Native Americans, and they celebrated with thanks. Perhaps you have nothing to express thanks for, and perhaps that's because you have no one to express your thanks to. But you don't have to celebrate anything, because this is America. There were great struggles throughout our history, and numerous wars and strife, yet we, as a country, can still come together to celebrate the common virtues and values we share, and be thankful for the plentiful life we, as Americans, enjoy.
Doug:
I think I'll let your words stand as a reminder of how privilege tells people that they should be thankful regardless of their individual battles.
David:
It's sad to think that you have nothing to be thankful for. You have a very heartless world-view. We can all find things to be thankful for.
Doug:
You tell em!
David: If you really want to help Native Americans, you should understand the plight they face today, not 200 years ago. We still have a Bureau of Indian Affairs that completely rules most of the Native tribes as "wards of the Federal Government". They have the highest rate of poverty of any minority group, suicide is the leading cause of death among Indian men, native women are two and a half times more likely to be raped than the national average and gang violence affects American Indian youth more than any other group. This has all been brought about by the US government managing their affairs. Perhaps you can spend your time Thursday lobbying the government to allow these American citizens to enjoy all of the rights the rest of us can be thankful for. At least the turkey you don't eat will be thankful.
Doug:
Weird, you forgot to mention "Standing Rock" in your soliloquy. You do realize that Native Americans are Americans, right? You literally just told them to be "thankful for the plentiful life we, as Americans, enjoy."
David:
They have been US citizens since 1924, thanks to a bill passed by the Congress. However, they were not all allowed to vote until the 1970's. They still do not own their land, and cannot use their land for any purpose unless allowed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The land in question for the pipeline is not on their reservation lands. Even if it was, the use of that land is solely at the discretion of the US Government. They must protest, because under the law, they have no other recourse.While they are US citizens, they are not considered immigrants, but citizens from separate nation. They are a separate class.
As a side note, before anyone starts commenting about inaccuracies in my time-line or details, all of the historical information contained in this blog comes from Wikipedia, History.com, US History.org, and a multitude of Native-American sites from individuals and tribes. If something is amiss, write to them.
Doug:
I'm imagining that students could always add that disclaimer to their papers. "Don't blame the researcher for quoting bad sources, blame the sources!" In any event, may you, and everyone, have time this Thanksgiving to find some inner peace away from the external world, before we head back to our war-like (and necessary) battles.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!