What really happened at the "First Thanksgiving"

[Meadmaker]

I was thinking about Thanksgiving recently. (Go figure) And I was thinking about what I learned of it in school. I was in second grade in 1970. It was a rather cynical era, and grew more cynical every year. So, in second grade we learned about how the Pilgrims got together to give thanks for the blessings of harvest, and how friendly Indians came and joined their celebrations. We eat turkey in remembrance of what the Pilgrims ate.

By Junior High School, the teachers were having none of that. It probably didn't even happen, and the Indians almost certainly didn't come, and it's not likely they had turkey. One story I read said they probably ate eels. The white men then conquered the Indians and took over the joint, but made up this fairy tale story to make white people look good.

Well, I never really questioned either the fairy tale original, or the more realistic sounding replacement. For some reason, though, I found myself thinking about it this year and it occurred to me that we have the internet now, and I could read about it in the real sources. I googled "Thanksgiving primary sources", and came up with this:

https://www.pilgrimhall.org/pdf/TG_What_Happened_in_1621.pdf

(Excerpts follow)
Edward Winslow, Mourt's Relation:
"our harvest being gotten in, our governour sent foure men on fowling, that so we might after a speciall manner rejoyce together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labours ; they foure in one day killed as much fowle, as with a little helpe beside, served the Company almost a weeke, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Armes, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoyt, with some ninetie men, whom for three dayes we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deere, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captaine and others. And although it be not always so plentifull, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so farre from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plentie."

William Bradford, Of Plimoth Plantation:
In the original 17th century spelling
"They begane now to gather in ye small harvest they had, and to fitte up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health & strenght, and had all things in good plenty; fFor as some were thus imployed in affairs abroad, others were excersised in fishing, aboute codd, & bass, & other fish, of which yey tooke good store, of which every family had their portion. All ye somer ther was no want. And now begane to come in store of foule, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, &c. Besids, they had about a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since
harvest, Indean corn to yt proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largly of their plenty hear to their freinds in England, which were not fained, but true reports."

Those are the only two primary sources.

They're the fairytale version. All that stuff that they said about the "first Thanksgiving" back in the second grade all happened. The settlers didn't call themselves Pilgrims, and their hats didn't look like the ones in the pictures, but other than that, the fairy tale version was pretty much spot on.

Even when it comes to the relations with the Indians, the Plymouth Colony settlers and the local Indians got on quite well for a long time, most of the lifetimes of the people who landed at Plymouth. Obviously, eventually, things soured, as more colonists came over and eventually white people pushed aside, drove out, or just plain killed the Indians, but that actually came much later.

I just found it interesting that the second grade, idealistic, story, that was ridiculed by the more sophisticated teachers who came along later in the '70s, was actually the accurate version, right down to the turkeys.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not familiar with what exactly you are referring to as the narrative taught by more "sophisticated" teachers from the 70's. What exactly are you suggesting is debunked? Native Americans today, including the members of the Wampanoag tribe, do not look back on this history with fondness. The First Thanksgiving marks the beginning of a relationship that would quickly mean the end of their culture.

Thanksgiving celebrations, especially those harkening back to the First Thanksgiving at the Plimoth colony, are often treated as an occasion of mourning for Native American types. Are you suggesting this is inappropriate?

Much of the land "settled" by colonists was vacant because European diseases caused an accidental ethnic cleansing of native peoples who had no immunity, leaving entire villages and regions deserted by the time the Mayflower landed.

Despite tremendous generosity to the struggling colonists, who all nearly died through the first winter, friendship between native peoples and new colonists would be short lived. Within 15 years Europeans and native peoples would be at war, followed by more war and the eventual elimination of indigenous society in New England.

 

[Meadmaker]

Obviously, Native American relations with white settlers went south after a while, but the story of the First Thanksgiving was pretty accurate.

Moreover, the people who sat together at that meal maintained good relations their whole lives. Their children didn't get along so well, nor did the other people who came to America from England, but the fairy tale version of Plymouth and Thanksgiving was pretty accurate.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not familiar with what exactly you are referring to as the narrative taught by more "sophisticated" teachers from the 70's. What exactly are you suggesting is debunked? Native Americans today, including the members of the Wampanoag tribe, do not look back on this history with fondness. The First Thanksgiving marks the beginning of a relationship that would quickly mean the end of their culture.

Thanksgiving celebrations, especially those harkening back to the First Thanksgiving at the Plimoth colony, are often treated as an occasion of mourning for Native American types. Are you suggesting this is inappropriate?

Much of the land "settled" by colonists was vacant because European diseases caused an accidental ethnic cleansing of native peoples who had no immunity, leaving entire villages and regions deserted by the time the Mayflower landed.

Despite tremendous generosity to the struggling colonists, who all nearly died through the first winter, friendship between native peoples and new colonists would be short lived. Within 15 years Europeans and native peoples would be at war, followed by more war and the eventual elimination of indigenous society in New England.

What, you don't think back fondly about that crazy good sex with an ex, before you found out she was actually crazy and royally ****** you over? Compartmentalization, man.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Obviously, Native American relations with white settlers went south after a while, but the story of the First Thanksgiving was pretty accurate.

Moreover, the people who sat together at that meal maintained good relations their whole lives. Their children didn't get along so well, nor did the other people who came to America from England, but the fairy tale version of Plymouth and Thanksgiving was pretty accurate.

Sure. All available evidence is that this was a pretty chill party between friends. It's not historical revisionism to remind people of the historical context in which this celebration would take place and the massive amount of genocidal suffering that would soon follow.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What, you don't think back fondly about that crazy good sex with an ex, before you found out she was actually crazy and royally ****** you over? Compartmentalization, man.

Like a battered wife celebrating the anniversary of the first date with her abuser. Sure, he would stab her 15 times a few years later, but that first date was soooo romantic!

 

[Thermal]

Like a battered wife celebrating the anniversary of the first date with her abuser. Sure, he would stab her 15 times a few years later, but that first date was soooo romantic!

Well if you put it that way, I guess Jeffery Dahmer's initial coy flirting loses a bit of its je ne sais quoi...

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure. All available evidence is that this was a pretty chill party between friends. It's not historical revisionism to remind people of the historical context in which this celebration would take place and the massive amount of genocidal suffering that would soon follow.

Sometimes I think too much "context" is the problem.

People can't get along because they carry historical baggage, i.e. context, from things that happened between ancestors.

Back when I learned the "fairy tale" version, I think I was too young to put it in context. I know I still even played some "cowboys and Indians" as a kid, and engaged in a lot of Native American stereotyping. I'm not sure if the US Cavalry had switched from good guys to bad guys yet. I don't know if my seven year old self even connected the Thanksgiving story with Little Big Horn, and I'm quite confident that I wouldn't hear about Wounded Knee for another few years, when there was a large protest at the site. It wasn't much of a "context" thing.

The Thanksgiving story isn't about White People and Indians, or at least, historically, it shouldn't be. It was about one specific group of white people and one specific group of Native Americans. I think it is best understood out of context, i.e. as an anomaly. It is what happened with one group of people, and how it was possible to get along even with people of different cultures, and even if people from those cultures had a tendency not to get on so well.

What really struck me though, when I read the primary sources, was the turkeys. You see, I know that when I heard the subsequent, cynical, narratives, part of that version was that eating turkey on Thanksgiving was just a myth, like all the other myths about the first Thanksgiving.

Well, there are two primary sources, and one of them mentions turkeys, and the other mentions "fowling", as a means of obtaining the menu. That wasn't a myth. So, it was interesting to me that in tearing down the feel-good, fairy tale, version of The First Thanksgiving, the modern retellers felt compelled to even attack the mythical menu, despite the historical documentation of that menu.

 

[Meadmaker]

In one way, I fear for what would happen if that first historical source was read by too many people today.

I can just see a revival of the traditional Thanksgiving pastime of target shooting.

 

[Thermal]

Sometimes I think too much "context" is the problem.

People can't get along because they carry historical baggage, i.e. context, from things that happened between ancestors.

Back when I learned the "fairy tale" version, I think I was too young to put it in context. I know I still even played some "cowboys and Indians" as a kid, and engaged in a lot of Native American stereotyping. I'm not sure if the US Cavalry had switched from good guys to bad guys yet. I don't know if my seven year old self even connected the Thanksgiving story with Little Big Horn, and I'm quite confident that I wouldn't hear about Wounded Knee for another few years, when there was a large protest at the site. It wasn't much of a "context" thing.

The Thanksgiving story isn't about White People and Indians, or at least, historically, it shouldn't be. It was about one specific group of white people and one specific group of Native Americans. I think it is best understood out of context, i.e. as an anomaly. It is what happened with one group of people, and how it was possible to get along even with people of different cultures, and even if people from those cultures had a tendency not to get on so well.

What really struck me though, when I read the primary sources, was the turkeys. You see, I know that when I heard the subsequent, cynical, narratives, part of that version was that eating turkey on Thanksgiving was just a myth, like all the other myths about the first Thanksgiving.

Well, there are two primary sources, and one of them mentions turkeys, and the other mentions "fowling", as a means of obtaining the menu. That wasn't a myth. So, it was interesting to me that in tearing down the feel-good, fairy tale, version of The First Thanksgiving, the modern retellers felt compelled to even attack the mythical menu, despite the historical documentation of that menu.

That's a sign of our times though, isn't it? Revisionism is no fun unless you are told every element was wrong. The historical accounts seem to indicate that the turkeys were one of apparently many dishes, as opposed to the focal point that we reenact faithfully.

 

[Myriad]

I live in Plymouth County (which is close to the same boundaries as the original land grant for the Plymouth colony) though not in the actual town. Wild turkeys live here today. The natives gathered cranberries, but probably more for use as a medicine and dye than for eating. Cranberries are still cultivated here. It's well known that fish was a large part of the colonists' diet overall, and of the "first Thanksgiving" in particular.

The green bean casserole is a myth.

 

[Thermal]

I suppose next we are going to hear that there was no football on tv, or that we had to yell at the racist uncle to knock it the **** off

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I live in Plymouth County (which is close to the same boundaries as the original land grant for the Plymouth colony) though not in the actual town. Wild turkeys live here today. The natives gathered cranberries, but probably more for use as a medicine and dye than for eating. Cranberries are still cultivated here. It's well known that fish was a large part of the colonists' diet overall, and of the "first Thanksgiving" in particular.

The green bean casserole is a myth.

The history of wild turkeys in the area is interesting. They were essentially hunted to extinction in the 19th century and have only returned to the area after they were reintroduced in the mid 20th century. Seems that most turkeys in the state are the descendants of the 37 birds transplanted in the Berkshires in the 70s.

I'm not from the area originally and I very much enjoy seeing them about.

https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/how-the-wild-turkey-vanished-then-returned-to-new-england/

 

[Delvo]

All available evidence is that this was a pretty chill party between friends. It's not historical revisionism to remind people of the historical context in which this celebration would take place and the massive amount of genocidal suffering that would soon follow.

That's not the revisionism being referred to. It's the movement to deny that even the "chill party between friends" ever happened at all.

 

[d4m10n]

The historical accounts seem to indicate that the turkeys were one of apparently many dishes, as opposed to the focal point that we reenact faithfully.

I'm going to leverage the historical accounts in my quixotic campaign to bring venison back to the table.

 

[Myriad]

Moreover, the people who sat together at that meal maintained good relations their whole lives. Their children didn't get along so well, nor did the other people who came to America from England, but the fairy tale version of Plymouth and Thanksgiving was pretty accurate.

Some members might not be aware how literally true the highlighted is. Metacom, aka King Philip, was the son of Massasoit who was present in Winslow's account.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's not the revisionism being referred to. It's the movement to deny that even the "chill party between friends" ever happened at all.

Is that the case?

I'm aware of revisionism around the event because cherry picking some incident where natives and colonists got along and making that a big national holiday, while largely ignoring the overwhelming history of intentional ethnic genocide against the indigenous peoples, seems like a choice worth criticism.

Telling a story of a specific event where natives and colonists got along well and were friendly while generally eliding the longer, more obvious history of bloody conflict, seems like a pretty obvious example of propaganda. It's a white washing of history, plain as day.

it would be like teaching the "Christmas Truce" during WWI and never talking about the Somme or the millions of dead. It's a tremendous disservice to students that so much emphasis in placed on this outlier event while the true history of the brutality of colonization is conveniently ignored.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know how things are taught today, because I don't hang out in k-12 schools, except in the robotics lab, where the only talk of Thanksgiving involves the tradition of gluttony.

What I remember from childhood and adolescence was the fairy tale version in the younger grades, followed by much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the fate of the Indians in middle school, followed by cynical deconstruction of all Thanksgiving mythology by the time we were in high school.

What struck me about the primary sources when I read them the other day is that they upheld all the "mythology".

ETA: Even in the early years and the fairy tale version, no one tried to represent 1621 and the First Thanksgiving as representative of Indian and white interaction.

 

[Venom]

Is that the case?

I'm aware of revisionism around the event because cherry picking some incident where natives and colonists got along and making that a big national holiday, while largely ignoring the overwhelming history of intentional ethnic genocide against the indigenous peoples, seems like a choice worth criticism.

Telling a story of a specific event where natives and colonists got along well and were friendly while generally eliding the longer, more obvious history of bloody conflict, seems like a pretty obvious example of propaganda. It's a white washing of history, plain as day.

it would be like teaching the "Christmas Truce" during WWI and never talking about the Somme or the millions of dead. It's a tremendous disservice to students that so much emphasis in placed on this outlier event while the true history of the brutality of colonization is conveniently ignored.

Ignored how and by who? I think this enters into the wider discussion of "what are they teaching us in schools" and it kinda annoys me.

As skeptics we recognize that most people have a pitifully selective memory. Things we learned in high school are often grouped along convenient, easy to remember motifs and highlights rather than detailed accounts of individual events. We're not expected to be history wizards. In between history and all our other subjects, after-school sports, barely getting enough sleep each night, messing around with the opposite sex, lunch, assuming you even pay attention in class or read the assigned chapter the night before, I think it's a mistake to reduce it down to propaganda or poor teaching.

I tend to think it's just more of the popular consciousness of America, something we pick up outside of disinterested study. We remember the good and forget/omit the bad. That's where the real propaganda is, imo.

For what its worth as someone who graduated high school in the late 2000s there was plenty of emphasis on what happened between the New England natives and newcomers afterwards. I can't recall specific details but we never left the course with the idea that they lived happily ever after.