HAPPY THANKSGIVING

[saxitoxin]

... to Americans, Liberians and Filipinos and late Thanksgiving to Canadians, Dutch and Japanese!

To everyone else ... GFY. GFY bigly.

[jimboston]

I am Thankful we have Saxi here in CC land.

[Dukasaur]

Oh, you guys just getting around to it now, aren't you?

We had Thanksgiving six weeks ago.

[NomadPatriot]

Oh, you guys just getting around to it now, aren't you?

We had Thanksgiving six weeks ago.

Canadian Thanksgiving
--> Significance: A celebration of being thankful for what one has and the bounty of the previous year.

American Thanksgiving
--> Significance: Tradition of honoring the Native Americans gave the European Pilgrims food to survive a harsh winter.

Canada - being thankful for what you have... " look at all this food I have!" ( Greed )
America - giving thanks for what you receive... " thank you for giving me some of all that food you have..." ( Gratitude )

"there is a difference between being thankful and giving thanks. Being thankful is something you are, thanksgiving is something you give. That may only seem to be a slight difference between thankfulness and thanksgiving, but when you stop and think about it there is a big difference."

[riskllama]

Trump went off the other day about "someone" trying to change the name of the Thanksgiving holiday to something else - anybody know wtf he was talking about?

[HitRed]

Trump went off the other day about "someone" trying to change the name of the Thanksgiving holiday to something else - anybody know wtf he was talking about?

Fake news

[NomadPatriot]

well at least this is one thread the crazy blue haired leftists cannot turn into something about Trump... exposing their continued TDS..

oh wait..

[mrswdk]

Trump went off the other day about "someone" trying to change the name of the Thanksgiving holiday to something else - anybody know wtf he was talking about?

These days you're not allowed to say Thanksgiving any more. Gotta call it Eid al-Shukr so that you don't offend Nancy Pelosi.

[NomadPatriot]

a duct taped European trying to tell Americans what they can say.....

[Dukasaur]

American Thanksgiving
--> Significance: Tradition of honoring the Native Americans gave the European Pilgrims food to survive a harsh winter.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thanksgiving-myth-and-what-we-should-be-teaching-kids-180973655/

The myth is that friendly Indians, unidentified by tribe, welcome the Pilgrims to America, teach them how to live in this new place, sit down to dinner with them and then disappear. They hand off America to white people so they can create a great nation dedicated to liberty, opportunity and Christianity for the rest of the world to profit. That’s the story—it’s about Native people conceding to colonialism. It’s bloodless and in many ways an extension of the ideology of Manifest Destiny.

What are the most poignant inaccuracies in this story?

One is that history doesn’t begin for Native people until Europeans arrive. People had been in the Americas for least 12,000 years and according to some Native traditions, since the beginning of time. And having history start with the English is a way of dismissing all that. The second is that the arrival of the Mayflower is some kind of first-contact episode. It’s not. Wampanoags had a century of contact with Europeans–it was bloody and it involved slave raiding by Europeans. At least two and maybe more Wampanoags, when the Pilgrims arrived, spoke English, had already been to Europe and back and knew the very organizers of the Pilgrims’ venture.

Most poignantly, using a shared dinner as a symbol for colonialism really has it backward. No question about it, Wampanoag leader Ousamequin reached out to the English at Plymouth and wanted an alliance with them. But it’s not because he was innately friendly. It’s because his people have been decimated by an epidemic disease, and Ousamequin sees the English as an opportunity to fend off his tribal rebels. That’s not the stuff of Thanksgiving pageants. The Thanksgiving myth doesn’t address the deterioration of this relationship culminating in one of the most horrific colonial Indian wars on record, King Philip’s War, and also doesn’t address Wampanoag survival and adaptation over the centuries, which is why they’re still here, despite the odds.

How did the Great Dinner become the focal point of the modern Thanksgiving holiday?

For quite a long time, English people had been celebrating Thanksgivings that didn’t involve feasting—they involved fasting and prayer and supplication to God. In 1769, a group of pilgrim descendants who lived in Plymouth felt like their cultural authority was slipping away as New England became less relevant within the colonies and the early republic, and wanted to boost tourism. So, they started to plant the seeds of this idea that the pilgrims were the fathers of America.

What really made it the story is that a publication mentioning that dinner published by the Rev. Alexander Young included a footnote that said, “This was the first Thanksgiving, the great festival of New England.” People picked up on this footnote. The idea became pretty widely accepted, and Abraham Lincoln declared it a holiday during the Civil War to foster unity.

It gained purchase in the late 19th century, when there was an enormous amount of anxiety and agitation over immigration. The white Protestant stock of the United States was widely unhappy about the influx of European Catholics and Jews, and wanted to assert its cultural authority over these newcomers. How better to do that than to create this national founding myth around the Pilgrims and the Indians inviting them to take over the land?

This mythmaking was also impacted by the racial politics of the late 19th century. The Indian Wars were coming to a close and that was an opportune time to have Indians included in a national founding myth. You couldn’t have done that when people were reading newspaper accounts on a regular basis of atrocious violence between white Americans and Native people in the West. What’s more, during Reconstruction, that Thanksgiving myth allowed New Englanders to create this idea that bloodless colonialism in their region was the origin of the country, having nothing to do with the Indian Wars and slavery. Americans could feel good about their colonial past without having to confront the really dark characteristics of it.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... ORKX87k.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

[2dimes]

Between this and friendface I am convinced Turkey dinner is the best idea for dinner tonight.

[saxitoxin]

American Thanksgiving
--> Significance: Tradition of honoring the Native Americans gave the European Pilgrims food to survive a harsh winter.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thanksgiving-myth-and-what-we-should-be-teaching-kids-180973655/

The myth is that friendly Indians, unidentified by tribe, welcome the Pilgrims to America, teach them how to live in this new place, sit down to dinner with them and then disappear. They hand off America to white people so they can create a great nation dedicated to liberty, opportunity and Christianity for the rest of the world to profit. That’s the story—it’s about Native people conceding to colonialism. It’s bloodless and in many ways an extension of the ideology of Manifest Destiny.

What are the most poignant inaccuracies in this story?

One is that history doesn’t begin for Native people until Europeans arrive. People had been in the Americas for least 12,000 years and according to some Native traditions, since the beginning of time. And having history start with the English is a way of dismissing all that. The second is that the arrival of the Mayflower is some kind of first-contact episode. It’s not. Wampanoags had a century of contact with Europeans–it was bloody and it involved slave raiding by Europeans. At least two and maybe more Wampanoags, when the Pilgrims arrived, spoke English, had already been to Europe and back and knew the very organizers of the Pilgrims’ venture.

Most poignantly, using a shared dinner as a symbol for colonialism really has it backward. No question about it, Wampanoag leader Ousamequin reached out to the English at Plymouth and wanted an alliance with them. But it’s not because he was innately friendly. It’s because his people have been decimated by an epidemic disease, and Ousamequin sees the English as an opportunity to fend off his tribal rebels. That’s not the stuff of Thanksgiving pageants. The Thanksgiving myth doesn’t address the deterioration of this relationship culminating in one of the most horrific colonial Indian wars on record, King Philip’s War, and also doesn’t address Wampanoag survival and adaptation over the centuries, which is why they’re still here, despite the odds.

How did the Great Dinner become the focal point of the modern Thanksgiving holiday?

For quite a long time, English people had been celebrating Thanksgivings that didn’t involve feasting—they involved fasting and prayer and supplication to God. In 1769, a group of pilgrim descendants who lived in Plymouth felt like their cultural authority was slipping away as New England became less relevant within the colonies and the early republic, and wanted to boost tourism. So, they started to plant the seeds of this idea that the pilgrims were the fathers of America.

What really made it the story is that a publication mentioning that dinner published by the Rev. Alexander Young included a footnote that said, “This was the first Thanksgiving, the great festival of New England.” People picked up on this footnote. The idea became pretty widely accepted, and Abraham Lincoln declared it a holiday during the Civil War to foster unity.

It gained purchase in the late 19th century, when there was an enormous amount of anxiety and agitation over immigration. The white Protestant stock of the United States was widely unhappy about the influx of European Catholics and Jews, and wanted to assert its cultural authority over these newcomers. How better to do that than to create this national founding myth around the Pilgrims and the Indians inviting them to take over the land?

This mythmaking was also impacted by the racial politics of the late 19th century. The Indian Wars were coming to a close and that was an opportune time to have Indians included in a national founding myth. You couldn’t have done that when people were reading newspaper accounts on a regular basis of atrocious violence between white Americans and Native people in the West. What’s more, during Reconstruction, that Thanksgiving myth allowed New Englanders to create this idea that bloodless colonialism in their region was the origin of the country, having nothing to do with the Indian Wars and slavery. Americans could feel good about their colonial past without having to confront the really dark characteristics of it.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... ORKX87k.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

This is not exactly accurate either.

1. The Mayflower colonists were celebrating the Dutch form of Thanksgiving that they had learned during the 10 years they spent in Holland after fleeing England. At the first Thanksgiving prayers were offered to save them from the persecution of the twin centers of evil: Rome and Canterbury. This fact is obfuscated by the PC police. So while Thanksgiving may not be a Protestant agricultural festival it IS an anti Catholic agri festival and that includes the crypto papist Church of England.

2. The first Thanksgiving was celebrated not until the third year of settlement. Harvest during the first two years was terrible and half of the Pilgrims died. Only after they abandoned communal farming and moved to a private property model were crop yields sufficient to hold a harvest festival. Therefore, Thanksgiving is also an anti socialist holiday.

[NomadPatriot]

American Thanksgiving
--> Significance: Tradition of honoring the Native Americans gave the European Pilgrims food to survive a harsh winter.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thanksgiving-myth-and-what-we-should-be-teaching-kids-180973655/

The myth is that friendly Indians, unidentified by tribe, welcome the Pilgrims to America, teach them how to live in this new place, sit down to dinner with them and then disappear. They hand off America to white people so they can create a great nation dedicated to liberty, opportunity and Christianity for the rest of the world to profit. That’s the story—it’s about Native people conceding to colonialism. It’s bloodless and in many ways an extension of the ideology of Manifest Destiny.

What are the most poignant inaccuracies in this story?

One is that history doesn’t begin for Native people until Europeans arrive. People had been in the Americas for least 12,000 years and according to some Native traditions, since the beginning of time. And having history start with the English is a way of dismissing all that. The second is that the arrival of the Mayflower is some kind of first-contact episode. It’s not. Wampanoags had a century of contact with Europeans–it was bloody and it involved slave raiding by Europeans. At least two and maybe more Wampanoags, when the Pilgrims arrived, spoke English, had already been to Europe and back and knew the very organizers of the Pilgrims’ venture.

Most poignantly, using a shared dinner as a symbol for colonialism really has it backward. No question about it, Wampanoag leader Ousamequin reached out to the English at Plymouth and wanted an alliance with them. But it’s not because he was innately friendly. It’s because his people have been decimated by an epidemic disease, and Ousamequin sees the English as an opportunity to fend off his tribal rebels. That’s not the stuff of Thanksgiving pageants. The Thanksgiving myth doesn’t address the deterioration of this relationship culminating in one of the most horrific colonial Indian wars on record, King Philip’s War, and also doesn’t address Wampanoag survival and adaptation over the centuries, which is why they’re still here, despite the odds.

How did the Great Dinner become the focal point of the modern Thanksgiving holiday?

For quite a long time, English people had been celebrating Thanksgivings that didn’t involve feasting—they involved fasting and prayer and supplication to God. In 1769, a group of pilgrim descendants who lived in Plymouth felt like their cultural authority was slipping away as New England became less relevant within the colonies and the early republic, and wanted to boost tourism. So, they started to plant the seeds of this idea that the pilgrims were the fathers of America.

What really made it the story is that a publication mentioning that dinner published by the Rev. Alexander Young included a footnote that said, “This was the first Thanksgiving, the great festival of New England.” People picked up on this footnote. The idea became pretty widely accepted, and Abraham Lincoln declared it a holiday during the Civil War to foster unity.

It gained purchase in the late 19th century, when there was an enormous amount of anxiety and agitation over immigration. The white Protestant stock of the United States was widely unhappy about the influx of European Catholics and Jews, and wanted to assert its cultural authority over these newcomers. How better to do that than to create this national founding myth around the Pilgrims and the Indians inviting them to take over the land?

This mythmaking was also impacted by the racial politics of the late 19th century. The Indian Wars were coming to a close and that was an opportune time to have Indians included in a national founding myth. You couldn’t have done that when people were reading newspaper accounts on a regular basis of atrocious violence between white Americans and Native people in the West. What’s more, during Reconstruction, that Thanksgiving myth allowed New Englanders to create this idea that bloodless colonialism in their region was the origin of the country, having nothing to do with the Indian Wars and slavery. Americans could feel good about their colonial past without having to confront the really dark characteristics of it.

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... ORKX87k.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

--> posted a few pages from a book attacking the premise of an American tradition of honoring the people who helped the pilgrims

and spent zero words denying this.. --> " Canada - being thankful for what you have... " look at all this food I have!" ( Greed )"

interesting..

[Dukasaur]

and spent zero words denying this.. --> " Canada - being thankful for what you have... " look at all this food I have!" ( Greed )"

interesting..

It didn't require denial. It's obviously not true. Greed is almost the opposite of being thankful for what you have. Not quite a diametric opposite, but almost. Greed is rooted in not being happy with what you have. It's wanting what someone else has.

[riskllama]

ok, then...*shrugs*

[saxitoxin]

Here's more (albeit from a papist perspective) about the anti Catholic spirit of Thanksgiving ....

http://www.davidlgray.info/2014/11/25/a ... nksgiving/

Also, the most popular and my favorite Thanksgiving hymn "We Gather Together" has fundamentally anti papist lyrics as in declaring "from the beginning this fight we were winning, the Lord at our side" and "beside us to guide us" rejecting the priesthood and the Episcopate of the Roman and Canterbury idolaters as intermediaries on Earth and declaring Jesus is "our Leader in battle" and not the witches of the Catholic religious orders

[2dimes]

We went to a restaurant for 'merican thanksgiving turkey dinner. It was absolutely delicious. It was here in Canada so they still welcome Catholics.

[HitRed]

Here's more (albeit from a papist perspective) about the anti Catholic spirit of Thanksgiving ....

http://www.davidlgray.info/2014/11/25/a ... nksgiving/

From your linked article.
"Their idea was to replace all Holy Days with Days of Fasting or Days of Thanksgiving."

Removing Christmas and Easter removes the heart of the matter. I can see why the Pope and King of England didn't like them around.

[saxitoxin]

Here's more (albeit from a papist perspective) about the anti Catholic spirit of Thanksgiving ....

http://www.davidlgray.info/2014/11/25/a ... nksgiving/

From your linked article.
"Their idea was to replace all Holy Days with Days of Fasting or Days of Thanksgiving."

Removing Christmas and Easter removes the heart of the matter. I can see why the Pope and King of England didn't like them around.

Well Christmas was banned in Massachusetts and Connecticut until the late 1700s ( https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/897 ... -christmas) but that was largely a reflection of the times when the churches of Rome and Canterbury were a very real threat to true Christianity and extraordinary measures were required for self defense. With independence came our ability to defend ourselves (until the influx of Italians and Irish in the 1880s who began eating away at Americanism from within and spreading Roman ideas and popish dogma ultimately culminating in the brief elevation of Kennedy to the presidency, a threat the Army had to neutralize).

[TA1LGUNN3R]

They hand off America to white people so they can create a great nation dedicated to liberty, opportunity and Christianity for the rest of the world to profit. That’s the story—it’s about Native people conceding to colonialism. It’s bloodless and in many ways an extension of the ideology of Manifest Destiny.

What are the most poignant inaccuracies in this story?

One is that history doesn’t begin for Native people until Europeans arrive. People had been in the Americas for least 12,000 years and according to some Native traditions, since the beginning of time. And having history start with the English is a way of dismissing all that.

When you want to show everyone you're woke so much you pass off your internal opinion and narrative fantasy into bona fide history. Where in the myth does it say the natives didn't have history?

[saxitoxin]

They hand off America to white people so they can create a great nation dedicated to liberty, opportunity and Christianity for the rest of the world to profit. That’s the story—it’s about Native people conceding to colonialism. It’s bloodless and in many ways an extension of the ideology of Manifest Destiny.

What are the most poignant inaccuracies in this story?

One is that history doesn’t begin for Native people until Europeans arrive. People had been in the Americas for least 12,000 years and according to some Native traditions, since the beginning of time. And having history start with the English is a way of dismissing all that.

When you want to show everyone you're woke so much you pass off your internal opinion and narrative fantasy into bona fide history. Where in the myth does it say the natives didn't have history?

Yup, exactly.

Of course the Wampanoag Confederacy did have a history - a history as a slave capturing and slave holding nation who would massacre entire villages except for workable stock. Meanwhile, the Puritans had no slaving history at that point in time (and only an incidental slaving history later promoted largely by latecomer waves of Europeans).

This is part of the reason that even other Native tribes (the Mohegan and the Pequot) joined the Puritans to fight and defeat the Wampanoags and the Naragannessett during the Metacomet Rebellion of 1683-85. Even other Natives despised the murderous/rapist Wampanoag culture that the writer idealizes. It was a company of Mohegan warriors under the sachem Uncas that formed the initial storming party that attacked the Naragannessett Swamp Fortress in 1685, allowing the Massachusetts and Plymouth armies under Josiah Winslow to overrun the compound.

[Dukasaur]

Oh, I get it. The best defense is a good attack.

You've got this unsustainable myth where relations between the Puritans and the Indians were all Warm Fuzzies with Peaches on Top.

Since your myth is full of holes big enough to drive a Peterbilt through, you're not even going to try to defend it, and instead just attack anyone who says otherwise, and nitpick about trivial flaws there may be in what they say.

By all means, carry on.

[saxitoxin]

Oh, I get it. The best defense is a good attack.

You've got this unsustainable myth where relations between the Puritans and the Indians were all Warm Fuzzies with Peaches on Top.

Since your myth is full of holes big enough to drive a Peterbilt through, you're not even going to try to defend it, and instead just attack anyone who says otherwise, and nitpick about trivial flaws there may be in what they say.

By all means, carry on.

It seems to me your myth of the noble, peaceful savage is unsustainable.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Oh, I get it. The best defense is a good attack.

You've got this unsustainable myth where relations between the Puritans and the Indians were all Warm Fuzzies with Peaches on Top.

Since your myth is full of holes big enough to drive a Peterbilt through, you're not even going to try to defend it, and instead just attack anyone who says otherwise, and nitpick about trivial flaws there may be in what they say.

By all means, carry on.

The myth is unimportant to me. Its validity has no ultimate meaning, all things being equal. What i do care about is hypocrisy dressed as enlightened woke culture. The intern who penned the article laments 'historical inaccuracies' and portrays native culture as the good guys. That's pretty historically inaccurate right there. Additionally, any article unironically deconstructing a minor child's tale to get white Americans to reflect on their privilege deserves to be called out for the prejudiced hypocrisy it is.

I mean, the whole article can't even remain consistent within its argument. On the one hand, natives didn't consider themselves one people (rightfully so), and so conflicts between the different native peoples are what? Normal? Par for the course? Okay? Yet on the other hand when the white people come in and have conflict, it's bad now? But aren't they just functionally another tribe since the natives don't consider themselves one people? So how is English pilgrims taking land from natives any different or worse than natives taking land and women from each other, which they'd been doing for thousands of years?

Hint: it's not worse, it's the exact same. And since the outcome doesn't match the value (value here being violence is bad), it tells me that the stated value isn't the same as the true value (violence is only bad when white people do it to the noble savages (this itself a form of racism) ), ie she's a college intern writing an article and wants to make sure her future employers or grad school advisors know she's woke.