Log in

View Full Version : Native Blood: The Myth of Thanksgiving



kasama-rl
22nd November 2007, 15:37
Native Blood: The Myth of Thanksgiving

by Mike Ely

It is a deep thing that people still celebrate, with thanks to the Christian God, the survival of the early European colonists at Plymouth. The meaning of all that, then and now, needs to be continually excavated -- because the myths and lies that surround the past are constantly draped over the horrors and tortures of our present. This article fills that need. Pass it on.

Every schoolchild in the U.S. has been taught that the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony invited the local Indians to a major harvest feast after surviving their first bitter year in New England. But the real history of Thanksgiving is a story of the murder of indigenous people and the theft of their land by European colonialists--and of the ruthless ways of capitalism.

* * * * *

In mid-winter 1620 the English ship Mayflower landed on the North American coast, delivering 102 Puritan exiles. The original Native people of this stretch of shoreline had already been killed off. In 1614 a British expedition had landed there. When they left they took 24 Indians as slaves and left smallpox behind. Three years of plague wiped out between 90 and 96 percent of the inhabitants of the coast, destroying most villages completely.

The Puritans landed and built their colony called "the Plymouth Plantation" near the deserted ruins of the Indian village of Pawtuxet. They ate from abandoned cornfields grown wild. Only one Pawtuxet named Squanto had survived--he had spent the last years as a slave to the English and Spanish in Europe. Squanto spoke the colonists' language and taught them how to plant corn and how to catch fish until the first harvest. Squanto also helped the colonists negotiate a peace treaty with the nearby Wampanoag tribe, led by the chief Massasoit.

These were very lucky breaks for the colonists. The first Virginia settlement had been wiped out before they could establish themselves. Thanks to the good will of the Wampanoag, the Puritans not only survived their first year but had an alliance with the Wampanoags that would give them almost two decades of peace.

John Winthrop, a founder of the Massahusetts Bay colony considered this wave of illness and death to be a divine miracle. He wrote to a friend in England, "But for the natives in these parts, God hath so pursued them, as for 300 miles space the greatest part of them are swept away by smallpox which still continues among them. So as God hath thereby cleared our title to this place, those who remain in these parts, being in all not 50, have put themselves under our protection."

The deadly impact of European diseases and the good will of the Wampanoag allowed the Puritans to survive their first year.

In celebration of their good fortune, the colony's governor, William Bradford, declared a three-day feast of thanksgiving after that first harvest of 1621.
How the Puritans Stole the Land

But the peace that produced the Thanksgiving Feast of 1621 meant that the Puritans would have 15 years to establish a firm foothold on the coast. Until 1629 there were no more than 300 Puritans in New England, scattered in small and isolated settlements. But their survival inspired a wave of Puritan invasion that soon established growing Massachusetts towns north of Plymouth: Boston and Salem. For 10 years, boatloads of new settlers came.

And as the number of Europeans increased, they proved not nearly so generous as the Wampanoags.

On arrival, the Puritans discussed "who legally owns all this land." They had to decide this, not just because of Anglo-Saxon traditions, but because their particular way of farming was based on individual--not communal or tribal--ownership. This debate over land ownership reveals that bourgeois "rule of law" does not mean "protect the rights of the masses of people."

Some Puritans argued that the land belonged to the Indians. These forces were excommunicated and expelled. Massachusetts Governor Winthrop declared the Indians had not "subdued" the land, and therefore all uncultivated lands should, according to English Common Law, be considered "public domain." This meant they belonged to the king. In short, the colonists decided they did not need to consult the Indians when they seized new lands, they only had to consult the representative of the crown (meaning the local governor).

The Puritans embraced a line from Psalms 2:8. "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Since then, European settler states have similarly declared god their real estate agent: from the Boers seizing South Africa to the Zionists seizing Palestine.

The European immigrants took land and enslaved Indians to help them farm it. By 1637 there were about 2,000 British settlers. They pushed out from the coast and decided to remove the inhabitants.
The Birth of
"The American Way of War"

In the Connecticut Valley, the powerful Pequot tribe had not entered an alliance with the British (as had the Narragansett, the Wampanoag, and the Massachusetts peoples). At first they were far from the centers of colonization. Then, in 1633, the British stole the land where the city of Hartford now sits--land which the Pequot had recently conquered from another tribe. That same year two British slave raiders were killed. The colonists demanded that the Indians who killed the slavers be turned over. The Pequot refused.

The Puritan preachers said, from Romans 13:2, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." The colonial governments gathered an armed force of 240 under the command of John Mason. They were joined by a thousand Narragansett warriors. The historian Francis Jennings writes: "Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops. Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy's will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective."

The colonist army surrounded a fortified Pequot village on the Mystic River. At sunrise, as the inhabitants slept, the Puritan soldiers set the village on fire.

William Bradford, Governor of Plymouth, wrote: "Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire...horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them."

Mason himself wrote: "It may be demanded...Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But...sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents.... We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings."

Three hundred and fifty years later the Puritan phrase "a shining city on the hill" became a favorite quote of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters.
Discovering the
Profits of Slavery

This so-called "Pequot war" was a one-sided murder and slaving expedition. Over 180 captives were taken. After consulting the bible again, in Leviticus 24:44, the colonial authorities found justification to kill most of the Pequot men and enslave the captured women and their children. Only 500 Pequot remained alive and free. In 1975 the official number of Pequot living in Connecticut was 21.

Some of the war captives were given to the Narragansett and Massachusetts allies of the British. Even before the arrival of Europeans, Native peoples of North America had widely practiced taking war captives from other tribes as hostages and slaves.

The remaining captives were sold to British plantation colonies in the West Indies to be worked to death in a new form of slavery that served the emerging capitalist world market. And with that, the merchants of Boston made a historic discovery: the profits they made from the sale of human beings virtually paid for the cost of seizing them.

One account says that enslaving Indians quickly became a "mania with speculators." These early merchant capitalists of Massachusetts started to make genocide pay for itself. The slave trade, first in captured Indians and soon in kidnapped Africans, quickly became a backbone of New England merchant capitalism.
Thanksgiving in the
Manhattan Colony

In 1641 the Dutch governor Kieft of Manhattan offered the first "scalp bounty"--his government paid money for the scalp of each Indian brought to them. A couple years later, Kieft ordered the massacre of the Wappingers, a friendly tribe. Eighty were killed and their severed heads were kicked like soccer balls down the streets of Manhattan. One captive was castrated, skinned alive and forced to eat his own flesh while the Dutch governor watched and laughed. Then Kieft hired the notorious Underhill who had commanded in the Pequot war to carry out a similar massacre near Stamford, Connecticut. The village was set fire, and 500 Indian residents were put to the sword.

A day of thanksgiving was proclaimed in the churches of Manhattan. As we will see, the European colonists declared Thanksgiving Days to celebrate mass murder more often than they did for harvest and friendship.
The Conquest of New England

By the 1670s there were about 30,000 to 40,000 white inhabitants in the United New England Colonies--6,000 to 8,000 able to bear arms. With the Pequot destroyed, the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonists turned on the Wampanoag, the tribe that had saved them in 1620 and probably joined them for the original Thanksgiving Day.

In 1675 a Christian Wampanoag was killed while spying for the Puritans. The Plymouth authorities arrested and executed three Wampanoag without consulting the tribal chief, King Philip.

As Mao Tsetung says: "Where there is oppression there is resistance." The Wampanoag went to war.

The Indians applied some military lessons they had learned: they waged a guerrilla war which overran isolated European settlements and were often able to inflict casualties on the Puritan soldiers. The colonists again attacked and massacred the main Indian populations.

When this war ended, 600 European men, one-eleventh of the adult men of the New England Colonies, had been killed in battle. Hundreds of homes and 13 settlements had been wiped out. But the colonists won.

In their victory, the settlers launched an all-out genocide against the remaining Native people. The Massachusetts government offered 20 shillings bounty for every Indian scalp, and 40 shillings for every prisoner who could be sold into slavery. Soldiers were allowed to enslave any Indian woman or child under 14 they could capture. The "Praying Indians" who had converted to Christianity and fought on the side of the European troops were accused of shooting into the treetops during battles with "hostiles." They were enslaved or killed. Other "peaceful" Indians of Dartmouth and Dover were invited to negotiate or seek refuge at trading posts--and were sold onto slave ships.

It is not known how many Indians were sold into slavery, but in this campaign, 500 enslaved Indians were shipped from Plymouth alone. Of the 12,000 Indians in the surrounding tribes, probably about half died from battle, massacre and starvation.

After King Philip's War, there were almost no Indians left free in the northern British colonies. A colonist wrote from Manhattan's New York colony: "There is now but few Indians upon the island and those few no ways hurtful. It is to be admired how strangely they have decreased by the hand of God, since the English first settled in these parts."

In Massachusetts, the colonists declared a "day of public thanksgiving" in 1676, saying, "there now scarce remains a name or family of them [the Indians] but are either slain, captivated or fled."

Fifty-five years after the original Thanksgiving Day, the Puritans had destroyed the generous Wampanoag and all other neighboring tribes. The Wampanoag chief King Philip was beheaded. His head was stuck on a pole in Plymouth, where the skull still hung on display 24 years later.

The descendants of these Native peoples are found wherever the Puritan merchant capitalists found markets for slaves: the West Indies, the Azures, Algiers, Spain and England. The grandson of Massasoit, the Pilgrim's original protector, was sold into slavery in Bermuda.
Runaways and Rebels

But even the destruction of Indian tribal life and the enslavement of survivors brought no peace. Indians continued to resist in every available way. Their oppressors lived in terror of a revolt. And they searched for ways to end the resistance. The historian MacLeod writes: "The first `reservations' were designed for the `wild' Irish of Ulster in 1609. And the first Indian reservation agent in America, Gookin of Massachusetts, like many other American immigrants had seen service in Ireland under Cromwell."

The enslaved Indians refused to work and ran away. The Massachusetts government tried to control runaways by marking enslaved Indians: brands were burnt into their skin, and symbols were tattooed into their foreheads and cheeks.

A Massachusetts law of 1695 gave colonists permission to kill Indians at will, declaring it was "lawful for any person, whether English or Indian, that shall find any Indians traveling or skulking in any of the towns or roads (within specified limits), to command them under their guard and examination, or to kill them as they may or can."

The northern colonists enacted more and more laws for controlling the people. A law in Albany forbade any African or Indian slave from driving a cart within the city. Curfews were set up; Africans and Indians were forbidden to have evening get-togethers. On Block Island, Indians were given 10 lashes for being out after nine o'clock. In 1692 Massachusetts made it a serious crime for any white person to marry an African, an Indian or a mulatto. In 1706 they tried to stop the importation of Indian slaves from other colonies, fearing a slave revolt.
Celebrate?

Looking at this history raises a question: Why should anyone celebrate the survival of the earliest Puritans with a Thanksgiving Day? Certainly the Native peoples of those times had no reason to celebrate.

A little known fact: Squanto, the so-called "hero" of the original Thanksgiving Day, was executed by the Indians for his treacheries.

But the ruling powers of the United States organized people to celebrate Thanksgiving Day because it is in their interest. That's why they created it. The first national celebration of Thanksgiving was called for by George Washington. And the celebration was made a regular legal holiday later by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war (right as he sent troops to suppress the Sioux of Minnesota).

Washington and Lincoln were two presidents deeply involved in trying to forge a unified bourgeois nation-state out of the European settlers in the United States. And the Thanksgiving story was a useful myth in their efforts at U.S. nation-building. It celebrates the "bounty of the American way of life," while covering up the brutal nature of this society.

Lenin II
22nd November 2007, 17:02
Aw mom, but we have to celebrate genocidal ethnocentric colonialist imperialism!

kasama-rl
22nd November 2007, 20:03
Share this article with others (http://counterpunch.org/ely11222007.html)

Someone asked: were the pilgrims capitalist or feudal.
Here is a side piece on that:


The Shining City on the Hill
by Mike Ely

Where did the Plymouth and Massachusetts colonies of Puritan pilgrims come from and what were they really all about?

Governor Winthrop, a founder of the Massachusetts colony, said, "We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us." The Mayflower Puritans had been driven out of England as subversives. The Puritans saw this religious colony as a model of a social and political order that they believed all of Europe should adopt.

The Puritan movement was part of a sweeping revolt within English society against the ruling feudal order of wealthy lords. Only a few decades after the establishment of Plymouth, the Puritan Revolution came to power in England. They killed the king, won a civil war, set up a short-lived republic, and brutally conquered the neighboring people of Ireland to create a larger national market.

The famous Puritan intolerance was part of a determined attempt to challenge the decadence and wastefulness of the rich aristocratic landlords of England. The Puritans wanted to use the power of state punishment to uproot old and still dominant ways of thinking and behaving.

The new ideas of the Puritans served the needs of merchant capitalist accumulation. The extreme discipline, thrift and modesty the Puritans demanded of each other corresponded to a new and emerging form of ownership and production. Their so-called "Protestant Ethic" was an early form of the capitalist ethic. From the beginning, the Puritan colonies intended to grow through capitalist trade--trading fish and fur with England while they traded pots, knives, axes, alcohol and other English goods with the Indians.

The Puritan colonies were ruled by a government in which only the male heads of families had a voice. Women, Indians, slaves, servants, youth were neither heard nor represented. In the Puritan schoolbooks, the old law "honor thy father and thy mother" was interpreted to mean honoring "All our Superiors, whether in Family, School, Church, and Commonwealth." And, the real truth was that the colonies were fundamentally controlled by the most powerful merchants.

The Puritan fathers believed they were the Chosen People of an infinite god and that this justified anything they did. They were Calvinists who believed that the vast majority of humanity was predestined to damnation. This meant that while they were firm in fighting for their own capitalist right to accumulate and prosper, they were quick to oppress the masses of people in Ireland, Scotland and North America, once they seized the power to set up their new bourgeois order. Those who rejected the narrow religious rules of the colonies were often simply expelled "out into the wilderness."

The Massachusetts colony (north of Plymouth) was founded when Puritan stockholders had gotten control of an English trading company. The king had given this company the right to govern its own internal affairs, and in 1629 the stockholders simply voted to transfer the company to North American shores--making this colony literally a self-governing company of stockholders!

In U.S. schools, students are taught that the Mayflower compact of Plymouth contained the seeds of "modern democracy" and "rule of law." But by looking at the actual history of the Puritans, we can see that this so-called "modern democracy" was (and still is) a capitalist democracy based on all kinds of oppression and serving the class interests of the ruling capitalists.

In short, the Puritan movement developed as an early revolutionary challenge to the old feudal order in England. They were the soul of primitive capitalist accumulation. And transferred to the shores of North America, they immediately revealed how heartless and oppressive that capitalist soul is.

bcbm
23rd November 2007, 02:17
Originally posted by Lenin [email protected] 22, 2007 11:01 am
Aw mom, but we have to celebrate genocidal ethnocentric colonialist imperialism!
Yeah, because people really do a lot of celebrating on Thanksgiving that is in any way related to the origins. I'm sure the puritans would've loved drinking, revelry and football.

kasama-rl
23rd November 2007, 02:22
you miss the connection between this culture and the one of the puritans..... the connection that is made through the holiday.

Sure, you are right: most people are not thinking very deeply about it.... but there is "thanks giving going on" as part of the ritual in many families. And the worship of family on thanksgiving, the celebration of American culture and ritual, the glory in bounty (food, and excess)....

it is rooted in harvest festival... but now is removed by several degrees....

but don't you think the current (materialist) holiday is rooted in the believe in "white man's superiority," the patronage by the Christian god, the belief in the superiority of theAmerican "city on the hill..." and more....

Isn't that "what our troops are fighting for"?

Aren't there layers of real, symbolic and expressed linkage?

bcbm
23rd November 2007, 02:28
you miss the connection between this culture and the one of the puritans..... the connection that is made through the holiday.

Americans certainly have their puritan streak, and you don't have to dig deep to find it, but what this holiday has become is fairly far removed from any celebration of genocide and domination over the indigenous population. Most Thanksgiving stories, however false, are about celebrating cooperation between the two groups- go figure. Not that anybody really thinks about it, its generally a time for getting together with your family, eating lots of food and being glad for those things.

By all means, tear apart the story of the first Thanksgiving for the nonsense it is, we shouldn't be afraid of talking about history. But I think what the holiday has become is completely detached from any glossing over of genocide, short of what is usually taught in elementary schools.

kasama-rl
23rd November 2007, 05:34
Ok, you think Thanksgiving is no longer connected to the genocide it commemorates.

Hmmmm. When kids are taught to play "cowboys and indians" == is that not a celebration of genocide?

When John Wayne made movies.... is that not a celebration of genocide? (Imagine the blindness and arrogance of this country and its culture: teaching their kids to act out conquest and genocide! It's as if Germans had their kids play "SS and the Jews." What would we think if they did!)

Or another question: Is the American constitution no longer connected to the slavery it codified?

Is the Confederate flag no longer a celebration of slavery, and just a celebration of a culture of the South?

Is the American flag not a symbol of slavery, empire, conquest, exploitation, and genocide?

Every time they say "The Japanese bombed American soil at Pearl Harbor" -- is that a white wash of the conquest of Hawai'i and the genocide against its people? Or not?

in short: are slavery and genocide the FOUNDATIONS of this country that mark everything about it.... or is it all something that is (somehow) over?

Faux Real
23rd November 2007, 10:06
Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 22, 2007 06:21 pm
you miss the connection between this culture and the one of the puritans..... the connection that is made through the holiday.

Sure, you are right: most people are not thinking very deeply about it.... but there is "thanks giving going on" as part of the ritual in many families. And the worship of family on thanksgiving, the celebration of American culture and ritual, the glory in bounty (food, and excess)....

it is rooted in harvest festival... but now is removed by several degrees....

but don't you think the current (materialist) holiday is rooted in the believe in "white man's superiority," the patronage by the Christian god, the belief in the superiority of theAmerican "city on the hill..." and more....

Isn't that "what our troops are fighting for"?

Aren't there layers of real, symbolic and expressed linkage?
Thanks for this thread k, I had never thought about this anti-Holiday in this way (the quoted correlation), though have always had some kind of vague contempt for it.

kasama-rl
23rd November 2007, 16:21
I have gotten many emails about this article over the last few days.

One commentator pointed out a typo in the above piece:

the quote used to justify slavery is Leviticus 25:44 (not 24:44)

It says:

“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you.”

Deep huh?

Lenin II
23rd November 2007, 17:43
Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 23, 2007 04:20 pm
I have gotten many emails about this article over the last few days.

One commentator pointed out a typo in the above piece:

the quote used to justify slavery is Leviticus 25:44 (not 24:44)

It says:

“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you.”

Deep huh?
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Check out evilbible.com and the Skeptic's Annotated Bible if you need further evidence of the genocidal nature of such things.

MT5678
24th November 2007, 05:00
Americans are nutcases when it comes to stuff like Thanksgiving and the history of their genocidal interactions with the Natives.

In class, I correctly (as far as the teacher was concerned) compared Wounded Knee to the Holocaust and some reactionary fool began crying out "We're not like the Nazis".

No...I would say that Americans are worse.

kasama-rl
26th November 2007, 00:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:59 am
Americans are nutcases when it comes to stuff like Thanksgiving and the history of their genocidal interactions with the Natives.

In class, I correctly (as far as the teacher was concerned) compared Wounded Knee to the Holocaust and some reactionary fool began crying out "We're not like the Nazis".

No...I would say that Americans are worse.
I really think you are hitting a very important point when you report on how people says "We are not like the Nazis."

It is deeply embedded in mainstream U.S. culture, that this country and its people are "innocent" and well intentioned. People believe the U.S. government and army are motivated by the desire to "help people" and (for some reason) people (like the Iraqis or Vietnamese) are just ungrateful or villanous.

People believe that the U.S. is a place of "liberty and justice for all" -- and that all the counter example you can list are only exceptions (and are so far in the past that "who cares.")

We need to undermine and refute these myths -- because they allow the u.s. people to support all kinds of attrocities.

How can people say "our troops are defending your right to protest and dissent"? It is utter bullshit. "Our troops" (which are not, in fact, "OUR" troops at all) are not "defending this country" or "serving this country" or "protecting our rights" -- they are thugs for imperialism and capitalism. They are brutal occupiers engaged in an illegal, unjust and unjustifiable campaign of global aggression.

bcbm
9th December 2007, 23:17
Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 22, 2007 11:33 pm
Ok, you think Thanksgiving is no longer connected to the genocide it commemorates.

Hmmmm. When kids are taught to play "cowboys and indians" == is that not a celebration of genocide?

When John Wayne made movies.... is that not a celebration of genocide? (Imagine the blindness and arrogance of this country and its culture: teaching their kids to act out conquest and genocide! It's as if Germans had their kids play "SS and the Jews." What would we think if they did!)
And a game played mostly in the 1950's, not so much today, and John Wayne movies have, uh, what exactly to do with Thanksgiving? I'm not saying native genocide isn't ever glossed over in the US, because it certainly is, but I don't think Thanksgiving is a large part of that. Look at the imagery... its about Turkey and football, cooperation and family. There are much more obvious and sensible targets... Columbus Day, for an obvious example.



in short: are slavery and genocide the FOUNDATIONS of this country that mark everything about it.... or is it all something that is (somehow) over?

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about genocide (how did slavery get brought in to this) as basic foundations of the country, or something that continues to be glossed over. That's obvious. I'm saying Thanksgiving isn't really a part of that tradition, beyond some vague mythology associating it with Native Americans saving the asses of some stupid Puritans.

kasama-rl
17th December 2007, 04:26
Originally posted by black coffee black metal+December 09, 2007 11:16 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ December 09, 2007 11:16 pm)
kasama-[email protected] 22, 2007 11:33 pm
Ok, you think Thanksgiving is no longer connected to the genocide it commemorates.

Hmmmm. When kids are taught to play "cowboys and indians" == is that not a celebration of genocide?

When John Wayne made movies.... is that not a celebration of genocide? (Imagine the blindness and arrogance of this country and its culture: teaching their kids to act out conquest and genocide! It's as if Germans had their kids play "SS and the Jews." What would we think if they did!)
And a game played mostly in the 1950's, not so much today, and John Wayne movies have, uh, what exactly to do with Thanksgiving? I'm not saying native genocide isn't ever glossed over in the US, because it certainly is, but I don't think Thanksgiving is a large part of that. Look at the imagery... its about Turkey and football, cooperation and family. There are much more obvious and sensible targets... Columbus Day, for an obvious example.



in short: are slavery and genocide the FOUNDATIONS of this country that mark everything about it.... or is it all something that is (somehow) over?

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about genocide (how did slavery get brought in to this) as basic foundations of the country, or something that continues to be glossed over. That's obvious. I'm saying Thanksgiving isn't really a part of that tradition, beyond some vague mythology associating it with Native Americans saving the asses of some stupid Puritans. [/b]
look closely. word by word. every thing said above is an example of precisely "glossing over."

The Gulag
28th December 2007, 17:03
Out of curiosity, how many groups as Communism eliminated? As for the Native Americans, no one agrees that what happened to them should have happened, and it was mostly accidental. Depopulating the land was originally a bad business move as the Europeans needed labor in Latin America, where they wiped out the Aztecs hierarchy with the help of over a dozen other native groups, and in North America they were almost only looking for pelts and trade routes. For a good amount of the time the traders were at the mercy of the Native groups who demanded that they fight with them as allies, and to pay tribute of weapons, alcoholic beverages, and textiles. Unfortunately, not even our cherished North Eastern Natives were immune to a certain amount of great and long lasting hatred to each other. Once our debt is dealt with more thoroughly, Natives should be compensated more thoroughly. Perhaps some of the land that the Trans Continental Rail Road was given for free by the government, then sold of for tens of thousands. Needless to say, I am not very Anti-American, though if I am very much against things that go against the ideals, not necessarily the policies, that this country was founded on. And I don't mean the aristocrats in the Continental Congress.

The Gulag
28th December 2007, 17:07
Originally posted by kasama-[email protected] 23, 2007 04:20 pm
I have gotten many emails about this article over the last few days.

One commentator pointed out a typo in the above piece:

the quote used to justify slavery is Leviticus 25:44 (not 24:44)

It says:

“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you.”

Deep huh?
The New Testament is rather against cruelty towards other humans and is rather straightforward that you will pay.

Jay Rothermel
26th November 2008, 15:32
Thanksgiving: A National Day of Mourning for Indians

workers (dot) org/2008/us/day of mourning 1204/

/Following are excerpts from a statement written by Mahtowin Munro
(Lakota) and Moonanum James (Wampanoag), co-leaders of United American
Indians of New England. Read the entire statement at uaine dot org

Every year since 1970, United American Indians of New England have
organized the National Day of Mourning observance in Plymouth at noon on
Thanksgiving Day. Every year, hundreds of Native people and our
supporters from all four directions join us. Every year, including this
year, Native people from throughout the Americas will speak the truth
about our history and about current issues and struggles we are involved in.

Why do hundreds of people stand out in the cold rather than sit home
eating turkey and watching football? Do we have something against a
harvest festival?

Of course not. But Thanksgiving in this country---and in particular in
Plymouth---is much more than a harvest home festival. It is a
celebration of pilgrim mythology.

According to this mythology, the pilgrims arrived, the Native people fed
them and welcomed them, the Indians promptly faded into the background,
and everyone lived happily ever after.

The pilgrims are glorified and mythologized because the circumstances of
the first English-speaking colony in Jamestown were frankly too ugly
(for example, they turned to cannibalism to survive) to hold up as an
effective national myth.

The pilgrims did not find an empty land any more than Columbus
"discovered" anything. Every inch of this land is Indian land. The
pilgrims (who did not even call themselves pilgrims) did not come here
seeking religious freedom; they already had that in Holland.

They came here as part of a commercial venture. They introduced sexism,
racism, anti-lesbian and -gay bigotry, jails and the class system to
these shores. One of the very first things they did when they arrived on
Cape Cod---before they even made it to Plymouth---was to rob Wampanoag
graves at Corn Hill and steal as much of the Indians' winter provisions
of corn and beans as they were able to carry.

They were no better than any other group of Europeans when it came to
their treatment of the Indigenous peoples here. And, no, they did not
even land at that sacred shrine called Plymouth Rock, a monument to
racism and oppression which we are proud to say we buried in 1995.

The first official "Day of Thanksgiving" was proclaimed in 1637 by
Governor Winthrop. He did so to celebrate the safe return of men from
the Massachusetts Bay Colony who had gone to Mystic, Conn., to
participate in the massacre of over 700 Pequot women, children and men.

About the only true thing in the whole mythology is that these pitiful
European strangers would not have survived their first several years in
"New England" were it not for the aid of Wampanoag people. What Native
people got in return for this help was genocide, theft of our lands and
never-ending repression. We are either treated as quaint relics from the
past or are, to most people, virtually invisible.

When we dare to stand up for our rights, we are considered unreasonable.
When we speak the truth about the history of the European invasion, we
are often told to "go back where we came from." Our roots are right
here. They do not extend across any ocean.

National Day of Mourning began in 1970 when a Wampanoag man, Wamsutta
Frank James, was asked to speak at a state dinner celebrating the 350th
anniversary of the pilgrim landing. He refused to speak false words in
praise of the white man for bringing civilization to us poor heathens.
Native people from throughout the Americas came to Plymouth where they
mourned their forebears who had been sold into slavery, burned alive,
massacred, cheated and mistreated since the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620.

But the commemoration of National Day of Mourning goes far beyond the
circumstances of 1970.

Can we give thanks as we remember Native political prisoner Leonard
Peltier, who was framed up by the FBI and has been falsely imprisoned
since 1976? Despite mountains of evidence exonerating Peltier and the
proven misconduct of federal prosecutors and the FBI, Peltier has been
denied a new trial.

To Native people, the case of Peltier is one more ordeal in a litany of
wrongdoings committed by the U.S. government against us. While the media
in New England present images of the "Pequot miracle" in Connecticut,
the vast majority of Native people continue to live in the most abysmal
poverty.

Can we give thanks for the fact that, on many reservations, unemployment
rates surpass 50 percent? Our life expectancies are much lower, our
infant mortality and teen suicide rates much higher than those of white
Americans. Racist stereotypes of Native people, such as those
perpetuated by the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves and countless
local and national sports teams, persist. Every single one of the more
than 350 treaties that Native nations signed has been broken by the U.S.
government. The bipartisan budget cuts have severely reduced educational
opportunities for Native youth and the development of new housing on
reservations, and have caused cause deadly cutbacks in healthcare and
other necessary services.

Are we to give thanks for being treated as unwelcome in our own country?

When the descendants of the Aztec, Maya and Inca flee to the U.S., the
descendants of the wash-ashore pilgrims term them "illegal aliens" and
hunt them down.

We object to the "Pilgrim Progress" parade and to what goes on in
Plymouth because they are making millions of tourist dollars every year
from the false pilgrim mythology. That money is being made off the backs
of our slaughtered Indigenous ancestors.

Increasing numbers of people are seeking alternatives to such holidays
as Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. They are coming to the conclusion that
if we are ever to achieve some sense of community, we must first face
the truth about the history of this country and the toll that history
has taken on the lives of millions of Indigenous, Black, [email protected], Asian,
and poor and working-class white people.

The myth of Thanksgiving, served up with dollops of European superiority
and manifest destiny, just does not work for many people in this
country. As Malcolm X once said about the African-American experience in
America, "We did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us."
Exactly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and
distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without
royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Prairie Fire
26th November 2008, 16:05
I'm glad that someone re-posted the Mike Ely text, which I was going to post today.

It's too bad Ely is a liberal-Kasamite, because he is actually an excellent historian.

black magick hustla
26th November 2008, 17:06
:shrugs:, a lot of the celebrations in civilization are based on ideas and things that are drenched in blood. I am a mexican immigrant and a conservative american friend asked me to have thanksgiving with his family. I am not going to criticize something that people use to celebrate and get together and be friendly. Every sort of discourse in the context of class society has history like that.

Sankofa
26th November 2008, 18:46
Great article. The fact we actually have holidays like Columbus and Thanksgiving Day speak volumes about US society. It matters not to me that people don't think about it, or don't even care what it represents.

It disturbs me to no ends how people can actually eat and drink happily to the slaughter of millions on their stolen land.

BTW to Canadian comrades, isn't Thanksgiving celebrated there also?

Red Flag Rising
26th November 2008, 19:00
Out of curiosity, how many groups as Communism eliminated?

Obviously not enough.

Apeiron
27th November 2008, 00:07
I'm all for uncovering the historical roots and inevitable fallacies of the traditional Thanksgiving myth, exposing it's origins in dogmatic Christian sects and brutal colonial practices...but it seems fair to say that much of the original myth is just that - a myth, with a shady basis in actual historical events (i.e., it now seems likely that the 'first' Thanksgiving was no where near Massachussettes). This only reinforces the fact that we should question the traditional narrative that every third grade class in the US reenacts, at best removing this story from our celebration altogether. However, Thanksgiving is above all a harvest feast - something present in many other cultures (including indigenous American ones), and there seems to be no reason to repudiate the contemporary practice of the Thanksgiving feast, despite its (questionably) brutal historical 'origins.'
This is not to say there is no blood upon the settlers hands... I think the case should be made that this is true. Just that this is probably more or less irrelevant in regards to the contemporary holiday.

It also seems historically questionable to refer to early 17th Century European settlers as 'bourgeois' or even 'capitalist'. Perhaps you can detect some origins of the latter in their conceptions and practices of private property, trade, accumulation, etc., but it's still an anachronism and only hurts the plausability of your argument.

Further, this article appears to assert that the Puritans and Pilgrims were the same group, founders of the same colony. What is your source on this? As far as I'm aware, the Massachussettes Bay Puritans and the Plymouth Rock Pilgrims were historically distinct groups, arriving years apart and coming from different religious traditions (despite some similarities).

Prairie Fire
27th November 2008, 07:03
BTW to Canadian comrades, isn't Thanksgiving celebrated there also?


It is, but our Thanksgiving is more commercial, with no real ideological pretexts. There is no mythology or rationalization behind it. The reason for this may be because it is probably an imported holiday from the States.

ZeroNowhere
27th November 2008, 11:11
Out of curiosity, how many groups as Communism eliminated?
Zero.

JimmyJazz
28th November 2008, 01:53
It is, but our Thanksgiving is more commercial, with no real ideological pretexts. There is no mythology or rationalization behind it. The reason for this may be because it is probably an imported holiday from the States.

There is no real ideological content to the American thanksgiving either. It's just a day for eating too much and throwing a football around. Ideologically speaking, I support Thanksgiving as one day out of the year where American children aren't forced to go to school and start their morning by pledging allegiance to the flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance).

Sankofa
28th November 2008, 02:14
There is no real ideological content to the American thanksgiving either. It's just a day for eating too much and throwing a football around. Ideologically speaking, I support Thanksgiving as one day out of the year where American children aren't forced to go to school and start their morning by pledging allegiance to the flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance).

I disagree slightly; it's become more commercialized and lost meaning over years, especially for older generations, sure, but the original meaning is still there.

JimmyJazz
28th November 2008, 02:26
In any case, there's no way you can compare Thanksgiving to something like Veterans' Day or the Fourth of July. Holidays like those really demand a counter-perspective like this one (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/douglassjuly4.html) (or check out the shorter version here (http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/douglass.htm)).

Sankofa
28th November 2008, 02:32
How can you not compare them? They're all based on the same lie.

JimmyJazz
28th November 2008, 02:36
Because I live here and I'm familiar with how people actually celebrate them.

Sankofa
28th November 2008, 02:40
Because I live here and I'm familiar with how people actually celebrate them.
:rolleyes: Just as familiar as how people celebrate them as you are.

People use the day to gather with their families, sure, but the holiday is still based on genocide, even if it isn't as direct as the previous mentioned holidays.

Sendo
28th November 2008, 03:46
Hmmmm. When kids are taught to play "cowboys and indians" == is that not a celebration of genocide?

When John Wayne made movies.... is that not a celebration of genocide? (Imagine the blindness and arrogance of this country and its culture: teaching their kids to act out conquest and genocide! It's as if Germans had their kids play "SS and the Jews." What would we think if they did!)


HAHAHA! Perfect counter argument--SS and the Jews

T-giving is so silly. A celebration of the ability of good Amerinidans to be taken advantage of cocky whites who didn't know shit and even had desertions of whites into the indigenous tribes. They should have died and left behind a warehouse of arms so the Indians could have fought off future settlers.

Not only do I inherit this racist, genocicial American nation, but I have to be reminded further by the 1/4 of my bloodline which goes back to those episodes. My grandmother's purely Anglo-American family tree goes back to 1600 for fuck's sake.

I hate this holiday and all it reminds me of. Plus ou have to have awkward conversation for hours on end with family members you may or may not like.

But at least the food kicks ass. Apple crisp, pumpkin pie, and stuffing.

I spent my T-giving eating live octopus in Korea, where the Xmas decorations have started weeks ago.

Prairie Fire
29th November 2008, 07:13
But at least the food kicks ass. Apple crisp, pumpkin pie, and stuffing.


I realize that there are methods of incentivizing workers to celebrate reactionary holidays, and that is the part people don't want to part with.

In my country, we get the birth anniversary of a long dead Foreign Imperialist monarch as a day off(Victoria day), as well as Remebrance day, a grand celebration of Hawkish jingoism and un-repentant chauvenist imperialism. Remerance day is also a day off, so I don't say no, as is Canada day.

The bourgeoisie state does use bribery (days off from work, state sponsered celebrations, delicious food) as incentives to promote their agenda and canonize their objectives.

JimmyJazz
29th November 2008, 22:45
I realize that there are methods of incentivizing workers to celebrate reactionary holidays, and that is the part people don't want to part with.

In my country, we get the birth anniversary of a long dead Foreign Imperialist monarch as a day off(Victoria day), as well as Remebrance day, a grand celebration of Hawkish jingoism and un-repentant chauvenist imperialism. Remerance day is also a day off, so I don't say no, as is Canada day.

The bourgeoisie state does use bribery (days off from work, state sponsered celebrations, delicious food) as incentives to promote their agenda and canonize their objectives.

I'm pretty sure the existence of a Labor Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day) in the U.S. (begun in 1894) is largely responsible for the fact that most Americans aren't even aware the May 1st International Workers' Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers%27_Day) (begun in 1891) exists.

In fact, May 1st is technically both "Loyalty Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_Day)" and "Law Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Day)" in the U.S. :lol: