Monday, November 30, 2020

First Nations' Heritage Day

 As we roll back into our rhythm this week it is worth our time to reflect upon the origins of the Thanksgiving holiday. Especially since the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620 overlaps with our current readings. The day after Thanksgiving is officially designated as Native American Heritage Day, though few Americans are aware of this fact. Looking at how the millions of First Nations' people in the United States today view this portion of our story is vital.

Last week we read the first hand account of William Bradford (1620) as he recounted the arrival of his community in Plymouth. We also saw an animated depiction based upon Bradford's writings. We of course make an error as young historians if we assume that any primary source document is ever the whole story. 

Below is a link to a speech that Wamsutta James, a Wampanoag, was banned from delivering at a Plymouth Thanksgiving commemoration in 1970. Hearing his voice as a descendant of the people the Pilgrims encountered and contrasting it with that of Bradford's voice is a minimum requirement of  any historian.

Like Bradford's account, Wamsutta's words are from his perspective.

Read the article at this link and then comment below. 

TASK: Share why you believe that this speech was banned by the organizers of the event. Offer a brief quote to support your argument. (as is our practice reply to two others.)

Note: We are not sharing whether we agree with Bradford or Wamsutta. We are only guessing why it was that his speech was banned.







71 comments:

  1. The organizers banned Wamsutta from making his speech because it (rightfully) antagonized the European colonists in the New World; specifically, the Pilgrims. In his speech, Wamsutta refers to the First Thanksgiving as "...a beginning for the white man in America." He does not hold onto the tale of Wampanoags (the local Indians of the region that encompassed Plymouth) and Pilgrims living side-by-side in harmony. Instead, he tells the truth. The Indians were stolen from, and even after they attempted to approach the Pilgrims peacefully (in the First Thanksgiving), they were betrayed to the extent that the Wampanoag nation would cease to exist as a sovereign state within half a decade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with your statement, if the speech paints a bad image for the Europeans, it would ruin Natives view on the Pilgrims, then creating rivalry between. This would have set back colonization in those areas, due to the natives not having trust in the Settlers.

      Delete
    2. Correction: I did not mean "decade" in my last sentence; I meant to write "century."

      Delete
    3. I agree with this. It seemed very important for them to keep the image of peace and good nature between white people and Native Americans.

      Delete
    4. (Sakari)
      I agree, it definitely paints the europeans and americans in a negative light, which they always seem to hate.

      Delete
    5. Yea I totally agree. It just painted a bad image of the colonitsts and portrayed them accurately, which was what they didn't want to happen.

      Delete
    6. I agree as well, being painted in a bad light would be horrible for both the Natives and the Europeans because they are still trying to establish good relations.

      Delete
  2. The organizers banned Wamsutta from delivering his speech because it was very critical of the Pilgrims in the New World. He speaks of the true historical facts of the oppression that the English placed upon the Native Americans. Quotes like "It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what happened to my People" from the speech prove that Native Americans mourn Thanksgiving while America celebrates conquering the new land, enslaving the native people, and erasing their culture. As a result, there's a bitterness coming from the planners as they don't want their ancestors to be remembered in that way, despite those being the facts of their actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree; the organizers did not want the legacy of their ancestors tarnished (even though it should be) by the true story of the English conquest of American Indian land and people.

      Delete
    2. Yes I agree, the people did not want the future generations to see Thanks giving as a time where we took advantage of the natives, but a time for giving thanks, even though the facts show the contrary.

      Delete
    3. You bring up a very interesting point of the organizers not wanting to ruin their ancestors reputations that I have not really thought much about in those terms.

      Delete
    4. I agree, I think it is an act of preservation of what we have been taught for so long.

      Delete
    5. I agree, the organizers did not want their ancestors to be exposed for what terrible things they did, and tried to protect their legacy.

      Delete
    6. I agree, the organizers didn't want to stain their ancestor's legacy/reputation.

      Delete
    7. I agree as well, and also think that the speech not only attacked them in their ancestors, but also them personally in the modern day, bringing the real history to what the organizers thought was too close for comfort for that audience.

      Delete
    8. I agree with this, the speech attacked the settlers in ways that the organizers of the event did not want.

      Delete
  3. I believe the reason the history of Thanksgiving was rewritten by the people, because they did not want people to look at them as people who were evil and took advantage of those natives and broke promises that “centered around land ownership.” They want future generations to look up to them as the great people who were king and gave thanks to the natives while they founded America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed--Wamsutta's speech was a counter to the false idea that the Pilgrims were good people who somehow innocently played an active a part in the colonization and conquering of the to-be United States.

      Delete
    2. Very much agreed; I think that the settlers were trying to make themselves out as the heroes, whilst also evilizing the indigenous peoples. It is most likely that the white people felt threatened by people who were different than them, so they tried to rationalize their actions.

      Delete
  4. The organizers banned Wamsutta from giving this speech because it spoke of a different history than one that has been taught for so long. The speech says, "History wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal" and continues on to state how that is misguiding. It pointed out flaws and atrocities committed against the Native Americans that the white people did not want to admit or own up to. I believe that the organizers did not want anything to happen that was not going to promote the message of Thanksgiving being a time of celebration and unity among all people, and Wamsutta was going against that status quo with this speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The organizers didn't want traditions like Thanksgiving to be disrupted by the truth of Wamsutta's words.

      Delete
    2. I totally agree with this. I think, especially at the time, that the truth of Thanksgiving and the relationship between the settlers and the indigenous peoples was unheard of. I think it probably startled many, and the organizers of this event didn't want that to be the result of their commemoration.

      Delete
    3. I agree. When they originally asked Wamsutta to give a speech I think they were looking for something in line with their versions of events that would (to put it bluntly) make them and their listeners feel good about Thanksgiving, not something that pointed out the flaws of the Americans. Clearly Wamsutta was not a fit for what they were looking for.

      Delete
    4. I agree with all of this. Wamsutta didn't follow the story of unity and peace, he wrote about the horrible things that happened.

      Delete
    5. I agree. The organizers intended to listen a speech that complimented the holiday celebration. They never intended to listened to a speech that attacked and highlighted the flaws of the white folks.

      Delete
    6. I agree as well, if a bad speech that detailed the flaws of the Europeans were to arise, it would paint thanksgiving in a bad light, which is not something that they wanted to happen.

      Delete
  5. I think that this speech was banned because of the, at that time, controversial statements in Wamsutta's writing. He outlined what really happened 300 years ago when the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts. He debunks the "schoolbook" myth of harmony between the peoples. He tells of the Puritan view on the indigenous people; to them they were "savages," and "hung as quickly as any other witch." Their land was blatantly stolen, their voices silenced, their existence unjustly distorted, all by the white settlers. Wamsutta unearthed these atrocities in his speech, which I can only assume angered the event organizers, because his words were making the white people out as the real monsters, which unfortunately wasn't far from the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Sakari)
      I for sure agree. He's definitely bringing up how natives were hung as quickly as "witches", both of which were killed for no reason other than to keep minorities out of power, and overall just paints white people as the bad guy, something terrible and Not At All Correct at the time.

      Delete
  6. The organizers of the event banned this speech because it puts the Pilgrims, and Thanksgiving itself in a negative light. Wamsutta says that Thanksgiving was a celebration of the "anniversary of a beginning for the white man in America." This contradicts the meaning of Thanksgiving that is portrayed. Although Wamsutta's points held a lot of truth, I think the organizers were determined to cling to the same narrative, rather than allowing a new perspective that might make people question the Europeans history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. You bring up a lot of good points, on how the Pilgrims did not want their "image" to be put into a negative light, so they did whatever it took to maintain the fake image that they had propped up, including forbidding Wamsutta from giving his speech. The meaning of Thanksgiving is put into a different light after this reveal, and we now know that it really wasn't a celebration of both the Natives and the Pilgrims, but really a celebration of the latter, rather than the former.

      Delete
    2. I agree. They weren't ready to hear this other part of the story and they especially didn't want to hear it at a Thanksgiving celebration.

      Delete
    3. I agree with this as well, people weren't ready for the natives perspective to be shared.

      Delete
  7. (Sakari)
    It's quite clear that this speech was banned because the organizers didn't want to ruin the event for the people going. Cape Cod is (or at least was in the 70s) a predominantly white group, and most of the people attending a Thanksgiving anniversary in 1970 were white christian families (as lgbtq, women, and black people were still fighting for their rights, and muslim and jewish folks were still being attacked). The organization didn't want anything "offensive" to be said, thus loosing the willingness to spend money on them (for whatever the organizers were from, like a business or something). The speech James wrote would of made the people there uncomfortable, and God knows that white people can't ever feel bad or guilty for something that was their fault. Especially when he wrote "We, the Wampanoag, welcomed you, the white man, with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end; that before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoag would no longer be a free people." Then there's also the problem of the fact getting out that settlers weren't actually that nice to the natives. If you are in charge of the education system in america (already poor enough as it is), you don't want the public to find out you lied, because some people with human decency will claim that that was wrong! And we can't have that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you are saying, and how the Pilgrims did not want the real truth to be revealed of how horribly they treated the Natives. So, they then crushed the Natives' opportunities to have their voice heard, such as this case, where Wamsutta was barred from giving his speech and revealing the events that actually happened. Instead, they kept up the lie of how the Natives and Settlers had a great friendship and maintained their peace treaty, where everybody was all equal (that we know now was all lies and made up to mislead people)

      Delete
    2. I think you made a good point when you said that the Cape Cod group were used to hearing the same (incorrect) history, and didn't want to hear a new radical take on the holiday, even if it was true.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Very true, it is kind of sad how much my own people try to justify our own wrongdoings or push them into the past like they don't still matter(though I am optimistic that that will change). I think that as a whole learning to overcome cognitive dissonance is one of the most important, and under-appreciated, parts in having a successful debate, though sadly it would be in the government's interest to keep opinions as unchangeable as possible, particularly on issues like the treatment of Native Americans where it is at fault.

      Delete
  8. The speech by Wamsutta was banned by the organizers of the event, because it was not what the Pilgrims wanted to hear, and the fact that it had tainted the image/view of what the Pilgrims had wanted Thanksgiving to seem like. In reality, the Natives were taken advantage of and exploited by the Pilgrims, and since the Europeans did not want the truth to get out, so they forbade Wamsutta from giving his speech. In the text, Wamsutta says that: "The early Pilgrim settlers led the Indian to believe that if he did not behave, they would dig up the ground and unleash the great epidemic again." This shows that the Pilgrims had committed various wrongdoings and atrocities, but since they did not want to be painted in a bad light, they tried to sweep it all under the rug, and keep the truth from being revealed, all starting with prohibiting Wamsutta's speech deliverance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. The Pilgrims didn't want to embrace their failure and didn't want to face up to reality.

      Delete
  9. While I don't know the details, I think it's safe to assume that this gathering was meant to be a celebration of Thanksgiving as "Americans" know it. That is to say that the organizers wanted a speech on the uniting of two people, the pacts made and friendships built, and the importance and greatness of this holiday. What they got instead was a speech that repeatedly pointed out the atrocities committed by the Pilgrims. Wamsutta uses "we, the Wampanoag" and "you, the white man" often in his speech, showing the divide between the two people and describing Massasoit's decision to welcome the Pilgrims as a mistake. This was clearly not the inspiring, comfortable speech that the organizers wanted and from their point of view it was much better to exclude Wamsutta than to allow him to read such a speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think your point about the phrasing Wamsutta used is true. The organizers wanted Thanksgiving to be a story about two groups of people coming together, and the fact that Wamsutta didn't think of the white people and Native Americans as an "us" or "we", didn't fit that image.

      Delete
    2. I completely agree with what you said. The phrasing he used probably made a ton of people uncomfortable and people would not want a "negative" speech at what is supposed to be a happy holiday.

      Delete
  10. The reason the history of Thanksgiving was rewritten was because the Europeans didn't want to show the Pilgrims in a bad light. They wanted the Thanksgiving holiday to be based on something positive, so anything negative would be left out of the story. The speech by Wamsutta was banned by the organizers of the event in order to stop the criticism of the Pilgrims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, as we well know there has never really been a Native-European interaction that didn't end in fighting. So, of course Europeans wouldn't want a speech that really highlights the negativity.

      Delete
    2. I agree. It put thanksgiving in a bad light instead of a good light and it made people uncomfortable.

      Delete
  11. I believe that the organizers banned Wamsutta's speech because it was different from what had been taught, and organizers did not want other ideas about what happened to be spread. The pilgrims wanted their future generations to think that the Native Americans had given them their land, and not what Wamsutta said about how it was taken from them and other wrongdoings against them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's so true that people just don't want to change what they already know. It was taught that the pilgrims were good and nobody wanted to change the mindset around them.

      Delete
  12. I think that the organizer banned Wamsutta's speech because it made them confront the fat that the Pilgrims weren't some perfect race of people who came to the new world to stave off oppression; instead it made them face up to the fact that they were racist, and treated the Native Americans horribly, and that was something they did not want to face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. The organizers did not want to have to deal with a speech like that, so they banned it.

      Delete
  13. Wamsutta's speech was banned because it did not fit the happy, peaceful, false narrative the organizers were trying to teach people. One quote that shows why his speech did not fit with their narrative is, "Although the Puritans were harsh to members of their own society, the Indian was pressed between stone slabs and hanged as quickly as any other 'witch.'" This quote mentions death and hanging, which probably was not considered appropriate, and it mentions the violence the puritans inflicted on the Native Americans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, a look of anything other than peace for these puritans would seem contradictory and just bad.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the only reason this speech was banned is because it portrayed the settlers as bad.

      Delete
  14. The speech was banned because it made the Pilgrims and the Europeans look bad because they use the Natives for there own gain. It shows that Europeans would take Natives as slaves and sell them fort a profit. The Pilgrims would rob graves of the ancestors since it was buried with corn and beans. The pilgrims also took the land from them and even called them savages.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wamsutta's speech was not allowed because it highlights negativity. This is kind of a minor detail, but the organizers wouldn't want negativity in what is supposed to be a positive holiday. Also, Wamsutta talks about Natives as "we" and makes the white Europeans seen as an "other" or someone that is frowned upon and did something wrong. So the organizers wouldn't want that kind of thing in the speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't catch those details but you are so right! Calling yourself "we" and calling other people "others" only helps create an "us vs. them" mentality, something that the settlers certainly did not want.

      Delete
  16. The speech was banned simply because it was bad press for the pilgrims. The Europeans did not want their colonizers to seem like bad people so by suppressing any speech that may expose this they saved face. Keeping a good image was very important as nobody wants to go celebrate people that believed native Americans were "savages," and that they should be hung, but rather they want to celebrate a happy people that were friendly and kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with this on how the organizers wanted to keep a happy image and good view of the pilgrims to everyone and keep away the reality of things between the two parties of people :(

      Delete
    2. I agree. It was more important to them to paint their ancestors in a positive light than to hear the truth from someone their ancestors' actions STILL harm today.

      Delete
  17. think that the speech was banned because it made white people feel uncomfortable, and the people who banned it were definitely white. The speech attacked the pilgrims instead of hailing them. the speech says "Among ourselves we understood that there were boundaries, but never before had we had to deal with fences and stone walls. But the white man had a need to prove his worth by the amount of land that he owned." This is directly insulting the Pilgrims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly this. They didn't want to have to acknowledge that their event might not actually be something worth celebrating.

      Delete
    2. Ethan Lader
      I completely agree. Unfortunately, the white people determined much of the fate of the natives, so it would be detrimental to go against them.

      Delete
  18. The speech was banned by the organizers because it showed the settlers in a negative light. At a time where the Natives and the settlers needed unity to coexist, this speech would've only sowed tension and encouraged disunity. He speaks about how in a white man's society, Indians can only be a "low man on the totem pole". The white settlers did not want to hear this and did not want others to hear this, so the speech was banned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally connect with your response on how if the speech was to have remained to be read, the pilgrims past and current living of white men in the U.S. would've been seen in a way that the organizers would not want under their own favor.

      Delete
  19. The organizers banned Wamsutta from delivering his speech because its of a different perspective and view that isn't the traditional peaceful meal and friendship between native Americans and pilgrims. "Frank James' views — based on history rather than mythology — were not what the Pilgrims' descendants wanted to hear." The narrators description tells readers on how his speech wasn't one that was convenient towards the pilgrim community.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think that the speech was banned because it highlighted the pilgrims and the Europeans in a bad light. The speech essentially attacked the white folks, when they were actually supposed to hail and celebrate them. Wamsutta intended and desired to separate the two groups of people, and wanted to highlight the fact that they are not on good terms, and that the white folks abused the Indians, contrary to what is believed to have happened with the Wampanoag. Wamsutta uses "we" to describe the natives, signifying Wamsutta's desire to avoid the idea that harmony exists between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The reason Wamsutta was likely banned from giving his speech is that it conflicted with the beliefs of those who would hear it. To be a bit more specific, given that they had a member of the Wampanoag speaking at all, they would be expecting to hear some sort of acknowledgement that times have changed and this area is now primarily white, perhaps even some recognition of the atrocities committed. But they would be far less tolerant of the idea that it hasn't ended, that the Wampanaog haven't given up. It would make them feel a lot more personally attacked, that they are still responsible, that still "It is with a heavy heart that I[he] look[s] back upon what happened to my[his] People," and that the Wampanoag still care. Essentially, I am arguing that even more than history can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, knowing that this applies to the present in many ways, that that story hasn't ended, would be much more so and as such much more important to the event organizers when cancelling Wamsutta's speech.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This speech was banned because, rather than painting an idealized version of events, it talked about the Pilgrim's negative affects on the Wampanoag. Wamsutta sought not to glorify the celebrated events, but to offer a more truthful account. He says how "the Wampanoag... welcomed...the white man...with open arms, little knowing...that before 50 years were to pass, the Wampanoag would no longer be a free people." He describes the decline in Wampanoag quality of life after Pilgrims and Puritans arrived, which the organizers didn't want. They wanted to celebrate a fictionalized version of events, not what actually happened, because what actually happened wasn't worth celebrating. They most likely wanted to uphold traditions rather than actually analyzing if those traditions were worth glorifying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. The effect that the speech would have on the future would far outweigh any potential benefits.

      Delete
  23. The reason that Wamsutta was banned from delivering his speech publicly was because it contradicted what had been taught for many years. Wamsutta brought a new perspective about Thanksgiving and the relationship between the Wampanoags and the Pilgrims, one that many people had never heard. The speech (rightfully) "targeted" the white settlers and showed that the two groups of people were not on good terms as the white settlers clearly mistreated the Wampanoag natives. Wamsutta says, "The Indian was pressed between stone slabs and hanged as quickly as any other 'witch," which shows how badly the Wampanoags were actually treated. I think that this speech didn't celebrate the white settlers so Wamsutta was prevented from presenting it during the Pilgrim Thanksgiving commemoration in 1970.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ethan Lader.
    Understandably, Wamsutta wasn't able to deliver his speech because of the detrimental effect that the knowledge he shared would have on his community. Their would've been the potential for future relations between his community and others to be jeopardized.

    ReplyDelete

The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave

     “The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.” - Thomas Jefferson     The retired Thomas Jefferson wrote a  letter  to his fr...