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.
I believe that they did not share this speech at the festival because they didn't want to hear what was wrong with their ancestors. They didn't want to hear about "Indian lands taken" and the "epidemic that took many Indian lives". They didn't want to hear the truth of what happened to the Indians so they didn't want him to speak.
ReplyDeleteYes, they did not want people to know the dark truth.
DeleteI agree, the vast majority of white people of that time and some people today would rather believe a false story that makes them look graceful than the truth which reveals the opposite.
DeleteYeah I can agree with that, they banned it so they could cover it up and so people don't know the real truth
DeleteYes, I agree, most of these people probably wanted to think of their ancestors as these great ancestors who helped found our country, not people who stripped these people of their identity, and depleting the local population in the form of atrocities.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with this. A lot of people believe that the pilgrims and the natives had an amazing relationship which led to the creation of thanksgiving. If this speech were to be delivered, people's opinions on the pilgrims would change and the pilgrims would lose a lot of respect. Their reputation would also be ruined.
DeleteThe organization banned the speech because in the speech, he reveals what really happened between the Pilgrims and Natives which America was trying to hide. He tells the truth of how the White man classified the Natives as inferior to society and stripped them of their culture and traditions. Wamsutta mentions all the different ways how they were wronged by the Whites, how their land was taken, they were killed. The organization did not want Wamsutta to reveal the truth because they knew their side of history was wrong and they did not want to look bad.
ReplyDeleteI agree that they didn't want to hear what their ancestors did wrong.
DeleteI agree, the history between the Americans' interactions with the Natives was altered so that the savagery and crimes committed by the white pilgrims would be hidden.
DeleteYeah they wanted to cover up their ancestors wrongs by banning him from giving his speech, and it would be hidden
DeleteI agree, the organizers did not want to ruin the festive mood of the holiday by revealing its' dark origins.
DeleteI agree with this, and I would've let the speech go on if I could, because people need to understand the truth of the natives' relationship with the Separatists.
DeleteI agree. They didn't want this speech to reveal the hard truth of how the Native Americans were treated by the pilgrims.
DeleteI agree with the idea that much of America tries to cover up the real history and paint their ancestors in a good light, in fact i've actually seen pictures of textbooks where people pretended the trail of tears didn't exist
DeleteI believe that Wamsutta James' speech was censored because it showed the false nature of the relationship that white Americans in the seventies were told existed between the pilgrims and the Native Americans. What I mean by this is that previously, it was thought by white Americans that the pilgrims were friendly to and had a healthy relationship with the Native Americans, however this speech reveals the opposite to be true. When James says "History wants us to believe that the Indian was a savage, illiterate, uncivilized animal. A history that was written by an organized, disciplined people, to expose us as an unorganized and undisciplined entity", he says that the pilgrims tried to discredit and vilify the Indians, contrasting the image of friendly terms and actions.
ReplyDeleteYes! They didn't want to ruin their image by letting people know what really happened.
DeleteI agree! The organizers did not want to disrupt the image of pre-colonization America white Americans had visualized. And in turn, revealing the violent origins of their lives in the U.S.
DeleteI agree. The speech was censored because they didn't want to show the truth of the relationship of Indians and Pilgrims.
DeleteThis false nature is often never challenged, its impressive that james made these points. Unfortunately it gets censored because the truth makes the early Americans look bad.
DeleteExactly. The planners wanted to continue this myth that painted the early white Americans as good, so they silenced the truth, which was the fact that they committed many atrocities against the Native Americans.
DeleteYup, it very much seems like these people were afraid of the truth because it would go against their whitewashed views on history ingrained in them from a young age.
DeleteI agree, the organizers did not want the white Americans to be exposed to the truth as it would have gone against the Thanksgiving traditions they had come to know.
DeleteThe Organizers of the events banned Wamsutta James from delivering his speech most likely because this speech goes on about the true history and what happened in the early Thanksgiving, this is the 1970s, it is much different from our world today but what we know for sure, is that what people thought is pilgrims had a friendly relationship with the Native Americans and that isn't true. "Even before the Pilgrims landed it was common practice for explorers to capture Indians, take them to Europe and sell them as slaves for 220 shillings apiece. The Pilgrims had hardly explored the shores of Cape Cod for four days before they had robbed the graves of my ancestors and stolen their corn and beans. " This explains how the Pilgrims in the beginning are not who people thought they would be, robbing the Native Americans, treating them like a lower class than them
ReplyDeleteI agree. The relationship wasn't as friendly as commonly taught, and Wamsutta's speech dissolved many of these taught myths.
DeleteI believe Wamsutta's speech was banned because it challenged the celebration of thanksgiving and the people celebrating the holiday. Wamsutta stated that this holiday was a celebration for the white colonizers but a time of mourning for the native people. Natives whose land was stolen and were killed by the white pilgrims. Wamsutta wrote, "This is a time of celebration for you - celebrating an anniversary of a beginning for the white man in America...It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what happened to my People." Wamsutta continues by listening the tragedies the indigenous people faced, including their land being stripped away from them and being hit by English diseases, whipping out the lives of millions. Wamsutta challenged the very nature of the celebrators and forced them to acknowledge their violent history that led them to living on native land. This speech, as intended, would make the thanksgiving celebrators extremely uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The speech was banned because it made the celebrators uncomfortable. They want to continue to live under this lie that makes them seem like good people when they weren't.
DeleteI agree, his speech would have forced people to consider the nature of their traditions and the actions of their ancestors, and because that makes people uncomfortable, they'd rather not face it at all.
DeleteI agree, one of the reasons that the speech was banned is the fact that the truth would make the people celebrating thanksgiving uncomfortable.
DeleteCorrect, we, like many classmates, recognize that this is simply another example of people in power rewriting and dictating history for their own good.
DeleteI assume that Wamsutta James was banned from sharing his speech because it identified the issues with early settlers. "they treated the Wampanoag with even less kindness in converting the souls of the so-called savages." The way Native Americans were treated was brutal, so we can assume the speech was banned because it would ruin the image of these people.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the organizers were probably raised with the version of the rosy thanksgiving story taught in schools, and did not want any deviation from their fantasy tale.
DeleteExactly, they wanted to keep their larger-than-life, aspirational, godlike image and suppressed evidence showing another, perhaps more accurate story.
DeleteThe speech of Wamsutta James was banned because it called out the real tragic truth of the actions of the white people in America at the time. He expresses his mixed emotions on the event as he states it is "celebrating an anniversary of a beginning for the white man in America... It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what happened to my People." Wamsutta is rejecting the white schoolbook myth that wrongly paints the relationship between the Wampanoag and the white ancestors as friendly and harmless. The event planners silenced him because they did not want the atrocities committed by their ancestors to be called out upon during the anniversary celebration, which would ruin their fake image.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte I agree that if Wamssutta gave the speech it would dissolve "the white schoolbook myth" of early America. In reality, there were many conflicts between the two groups, and it was far from peaceful.
DeleteI agree that people don't want to hear their mistakes, or even their long-dead ancestors', recounted and talked about, or even accept that they happened.
DeleteI agree that if the speech was presented to the public it would ruin the image of the people had. Hence they banned the speech to avoid any conflict and to hide the truth from their people.
DeleteI think that they banned Wamsutta James from delivering the speech because he didn't shy away from the hard truth of what actually happened between the English and the Native peoples. The 70's were very different from current times, and the brutality of what happened wasn't widely talked about yet. So when Wamsutta wanted to give this speech that states "The Pilgrims had hardly explored the shores of Cape Cod for four days before they had robbed the graves of my ancestors and stolen their corn and beans." This, and other details, do not paint the early encounters in a positive light, instead suggesting that the English did terrible things to the natives rather than peacefully coexisting.
ReplyDeleteI agree, he told the hard truth and people don't like facing those, and that's why they took him out.
DeleteHe wanted to educate people, and the planners wanted to paint a fictional painting.
DeleteI agree, he told of something that was a truth many white people wanted to ignore.
DeleteWamsutta's speech was probably banned because the organizers of this event he was scheduled to speak at wanted to stick to a specific narrative, most likely the one of settlers and natives becoming best friends instantly and sharing a feast together, and did not want to have any alternate viewpoints raised. Wamsutta James planned to speak harshly, yet fairly, on the truths of what happened to his people, and the people who invited him did not want someone with a world view that went against their own sheltered, coddled one.
ReplyDeleteI agree because the speech wouldn't fit the narrative that many people believed.
DeleteExactly, they wanted to taint the narrative in their favor and suppressed any evidence that would negate the narrative they were creating.
DeleteI think the speech was banned because Wamsutta James was trying to shed light on the things that the English did to the Natives that would ruin the image that many people believed of the English and what they did in the Americas. It would ruin the image of the English because the speech would have shown how the Natives were seen as "savages" and how disease was spread and killed many of the natives due to English coming to the Americas.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts exactly.
DeleteI agree because people in the white community did not want the truth of how the natives were actually treated to come out and instead continue believing the story they told us.
ReplyDeleteI think that Wamsutta's speech was banned because the organizers thought that the truth would make people uncomfortable. People don't like to think about the dark origins of things, especially when it was their ancestors who committed those deeds. They were probably trying to present the history as one full of friendship and sharing, and they didn't like the fact that that it wasn't and so censured out Wamsutta and his history because it showed the ugly truth. He says that for those listening, it is a happy day, the arrival of their people, but for him, it is sad. In his speech he challenges the beliefs around thanksgiving and presents the other side of the story. And because if this, the organizers, feeling uncomfortable facing the consequences of their ancestors' action, took him out of it.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the ideal that people only want to look on their pasts and their ancestors pasts in a good light.
DeleteI agree. Since people tend to look up to their ancestors, finding out the dark truth would just ruin things for them.
DeleteThe speech was most likely banned because it exposed how the English truly thought of the Natives. The organizers must have thought that the speech would go against how the people of America perceived the traditions and way of celebrating Thanksgiving. On top of this, they thought that it would make everything uncomfortable as the speech would speak upon the tragedies that the Native people had to go through.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine his speech was banned because people don't enjoy being talked about, or their ancestors being talked about, in any way other than in a good memory or in a good light. This is true all throughout history, where we idolize certain people or nations and hate others, just because they were not us. This isn't just between countries, but even political parties and groups even smaller than that! Anyone who is on your side is good, and anyone against you is labeled as bad.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Wamasutta James was censored because he didn't tell the story that the white planners wanted him to. He was honest about his experiences as a Native American, and the experiences of his ancestors. He was too honest. "there were atrocities; there were broken promises" The planners wanted a false narrative of friendship and teamwork that could make the audience feel good. Ignorance is bliss.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was banned because James had said the truth, it was something the planners didn't want to hear, therefore they banned it.
DeleteI believe they banned this speech because they wanted to taint history and put their ancestors in as positive light as possible. They wanted to keep seeing their heritage as heroic, admirable, aspirational figures, hence why they banned a speech that proposed otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI agree, because the ancestors were said to be terrible so many times that they had to ban the speech.
DeleteI agree, they definitely didn't want to have to think about the fact that their ancestors weren't good people
DeleteI agree and it especially would not have been great to hear about the wrongdoings of your own ancestors on the day of a celebration.
DeleteThe speech must've been banned because of how it pointed out how bad the ancestors of the organizers were. "The Indian, having been stripped of his power, could only stand by and watch while the white man took his land and used it for his personal gain." This quote isn't the only instance of this, throughout the entire speech. The organizers are constantly reminded how bad their ancestors were. To make them seem like good people, their only solution was to ban the speech, therefore they did.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the speech was a whole prelection on how the worst and the reality of their ancestors.
DeleteThe speech was banned because the organizers didn't want to believe that they were wrong, and they wanted to keep idolizing their ancestors. They didn't want the difficulty of having to rethink things that had been ingrained in them since childhood, and instead opted to stay ignorant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points and I especially liked your last couple of words "opted to stay ignorant" as it shows the organizers clearly knew why they were banning the speech.
DeleteThe speech, made by a descendent of the Wampanoags, was banned by the organizers of the anniversary as it showed them a side of their ancestors that was contradicting to the “white schoolbook myth of friendly relations between their forefathers and the Wampanoag,”which would disrupt their belief that their ancestors did nothing wrong. To support this claim, Frank James, the creator of the speech, states, “ It is with mixed emotion that I stand here to share my thoughts. This is a time of celebration for you - celebrating an anniversary of a beginning for the white man in America. A time of looking back, of reflection. It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what happened to my People.” This quote alone shows quite a contrast this celebration means to both groups of people, for the white man it is a celebration of conquest, for the Wampanoag it is a time for mourning, and these words alone could destroy the very fabric of reality that the white man clings to.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and I liked the connections you made to the present, and you are right, we need to embrace history as it is.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe this speech was banned because it revealed the truth behind the actions of the white people and how it brought misery to the Natives. It would also be uncomfortable towards the white people to hear about what their ancestors have done and it would basically beat the purpose of celebrating thanksgiving. Wamsutta says, "It is with a heavy heart that I look back upon what happened to my People." Perhaps deep down, the white people knew that Wamsutta is correct about the misdeeds that took place, but because they have come too far to admit their wrongdoings (if they even consider them wrongdoings), they chose to silence him.
ReplyDeleteI think they banned the speech because of the truth. They didn't want to acknowledge the dark past and the speech would've brought the truth back to life and acknowledgment. I also think it was because they didn't want to have the truth ruin the reputation that they may have with their people.
ReplyDelete