Thanksgiving Day

djeddy

Happy thanksgiving day,

Beautiful to see people giving thanks to a loveing god for the blessings in their lives

metrovelvet

Thanksgiving is a secular holiday. People give thanks to God, G-d, Yaweh, Jesus, Allah, Mother Earth, Sara Lee, Birds Eye, people for the eating of tasty animals, and mommy and daddy, their employer, whomever.

Nodin

metrovelvet wrote: »

, their employer,

Steady on. We can only take secular liberalism so far, you know.

BrianCalgary

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thanksgiving is a secular holiday. People give thanks to God, G-d, Yaweh, Jesus, Allah, Mother Earth, Sara Lee, Birds Eye, people for the eating of tasty animals, and mommy and daddy, their employer, whomever.

It has become as such. It's origins are in Christians taking the day to thank God for the harvest and the bounty He provided to get them through the winter.

CiDeRmAn

Not sure the native american people would quite see Thanksgiving in quite the same light as some of the posters here, given the rather poor treatment of them by the christian puritans that were ran out of europe, only for w.a.s.p. history to repaint the colonists as some sort of folk heroes, I think not...

BrianCalgary

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Not sure the native american people would quite see Thanksgiving in quite the same light as some of the posters here, given the rather poor treatment of them by the christian puritans that were ran out of europe, only for w.a.s.p. history to repaint the colonists as some sort of folk heroes, I think not...

The Puritans treated the Natives well. They learned from them and co-existed with them.

The Natives went doenhill when the godless profiteers arrived who only thought of themselves and their own comforts.

CiDeRmAn

Godless profiteers?
Not sure that's entirely correct, from what I can gather the bulk of the business end of things, exploiting the americas and such, were run by european states, they themselves ruled by christian kings and queens, the frontline of profiteers were granted licence by these religious states to bring religion and take resources from the america's.
Not so godless I feel, and this is borne out in research, the state sponsored european settlers brought disease and religion to the america's, precious little to give thanks for.

Check this out,
http://www.oyate.org/resources/shortthanks.html

BrianCalgary

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Godless profiteers?
Not sure that's entirely correct, from what I can gather the bulk of the business end of things, exploiting the americas and such, were run by european states, they themselves ruled by christian kings and queens, the frontline of profiteers were granted licence by these religious states to bring religion and take resources from the america's.
Not so godless I feel, and this is borne out in research, the state sponsored european settlers brought disease and religion to the america's, precious little to give thanks for.

Check this out,
http://www.oyate.org/resources/shortthanks.html

I checked it and the author is really splitting hairs about the fact that many cultures gave thanks. He fails to realise or understand, as he gets bogged down in detail, is that the 'First Thanksgiving is a story. A story of a people that came to a new land, came up against differnt living conditions and cultures and survived. And that survival is what we thank God for.

I wouldn't necessarily call the rulers of European states "Christian". Their word may have said as much yet their actions or the fruits of their actions tell a different story.

CiDeRmAn

Well, are you going to define christian by their proscribed faith or by their acts?
By that measure I know only a few christians, and most of them aren't Christians at all.
The rulers of Europe at the time were all Christians of one brand or another, Catholic or Protestant, depending on the power bloc they were part of.

To suggest that people should give thanks to god for going up against different cultures, amongst other things, and surviving, well, maybe they shouldn't have been going up against other cultures at all, and moved on. As "christians" should they have shown a tad more respect for the people they found already living in their intended home, instead of stealing their land away?
Or maybe, as the natives were seen then as a degenerate people, maybe they didn't give a fig about them, and did as they pleased, a far more likely scenario.

rockbeer

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Puritans treated the Natives well.

How generous of them.

BrianCalgary

We recognise Christians by their acts.

Did the immigrants know that they were digging up a burial site? If not you can't blame them or finding food.

They did co-exist peacefully enough. The ones thatcaused problems were those who didn't show the fruit of being Christian and therefore were not walking with God as they believed that the natives were savages and and a threat to the well being.

Natives in North America had been warring for centuries as they followed food. So the idea, to the native, that someone coming so close to their land was an immediate threat to their well being would have been the default understanding and had their hackles up immediately.

ChocolateSauce

The colonial expansion of Europe was driven by countless people with countless creeds, ideals, and desires, and it is impossible to put it down to just religion or lack thereof.

CerebralCortex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Puritans treated the Natives well. They learned from them and co-existed with them.

The Natives went doenhill when the godless profiteers arrived who only thought of themselves and their own comforts.

No they didn't, the very thought that they could live on another peoples land in huge numbers is nothing short of pure aggression. I'm not saying it could be avoided but lets call a spade a spade.

BrianCalgary

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No they didn't, the very thought that they could live on another peoples land in huge numbers is nothing short of pure aggression. I'm not saying it could be avoided but lets call a spade a spade.

What you ahev to understand is where the local land began and ended. There was huge space and th epuritans would have set up shop on a piece of uninhabited soil.

They did not go in and attempt to take over and existing village but moved onto unoccupied land.

I fail to see the agression?

PDN

I was attending a 9/11 commemoration in Tennessee in September. I was one of the invited guests so I was looking suitably solemn as we stood on the courthouse steps. One of the speakers began talking about the brave pioneers that came to start a new life "in an uninhabited land". My friend whispered to me, "Except for a nations of native Americans". It was all I could do to maintain my solemn visage.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote: »

I was attending a 9/11 commemoration in Tennessee in September. I was one of the invited guests so I was looking suitably solemn as we stood on the courthouse steps. One of the speakers began talking about the brave pioneers that came to start a new life "in an uninhabited land". My friend whispered to me, "Except for a nations of native Americans". It was all I could do to maintain my solemn visage.

That is fascinating that somone could have said such a thing.

But on the other hand depending on where you live will determine your native awareness. I grew up in Toronto, not a native in sight. The first one I met was a junior high music teacher.

Here in Calgary my kids are very aware as there is a reserve right on teh edge of the city that we have driven by and on, quite a few times over the years. My daughter had a native team mate for two seasons.

For here I could see a Torontonian making such a statement, but not a prairie kid.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I grew up in Toronto, not a native in sight. The first one I met was a junior high music teacher.

A cynic might say that demonstrates what an efficient job the first settlers did of getting rid of them.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote: »

A cynic might say that demonstrates what an efficient job the first settlers did of getting rid of them.

True. Or the reservations are so far away from Toronto that you just didn't see them.

I think the closest is the 6 nations reserve which is not on the way to cottage country, so you dont even go near it on vacations.