1. Yes, it's a whole new look! Have questions or need help? Please post your question in the New Forum Questions thread Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Seeing tons of unread posts after the upgrade? See this thread for help. Click the X to the right to dismiss this notice
    Dismiss Notice

Who are We?

Discussion in 'General Chat Forum' started by Carol Al-Ajroush, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. Carol Al-Ajroush

    Carol Al-Ajroush New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you...it seems that his stance is to keep returning to the point that America was originally founded by the British settlers with their core values and that is what he seems to define as the true Americans. I do not agree with this point per se...as I have always believed America to be open for all. However his comments as pertains to losing identity because now instead of what one would consider pure America, we now have all these pockets of culture that immigrants bring with them and retain.

    Have you read his book? If not, at least do a web search for some of the interviews or book reviews which are interesting and provocative.


     
  2. Carol Al-Ajroush

    Carol Al-Ajroush New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey folks...we do seem to be getting really off topic on some of the responses here. If one does want to debate further issue of Roe vs Wade or abortion, could that be started in a new thread? No offense!

    To get back on topic... how about some remarks on:

    -what do you view as America's identity?

    -what do you view as America's core values?

    -Is America's identity and values being lost due to the influx of immigrants?

    -if so, what groups are impacting on these changes?

    -do these changes weaken or strengthen America?
     
  3. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Carol et al. Since this is a wide open topic I'm chiming in, because it looks like you've kicked off a great discussion. To your points and some others raised:

    Identity? Yes, we are a land of immigrants, and should be open to all. To change that changes a fundamental precept that has made us unique and great. We still are great, in fact, all pessimism to the contrary--last I looked we still had long lines waiting to get in. The question becomes are they waiting to get in on the same core set of opportunities that have been a beacon for years, or on what some of those opportunities have become?

    I think our core values are based on equality--before the law, in opportunity, in voting, and so on. No one has any edge in law that makes them more or less than any other citizen. The tools are there to be used, as they have been for centuries, and still are used by people from all over the world who still seek "the land of opportunity".

    I don't think our core values are being lost because of immigrants--if that were true each succeeding wave in the past would have eroded us to a shell instead of enriching us. The only thing I see that is different relates to the hyphenated American point raised: My grandparents immigrated, and school was the great equalizer and empowering body. It occurred in English, the language of the adopted land. Culture was kept alive in the home, and yes through the churches (go to the coal towns of Pennsylvania--a different ethnic church on every corner, and a corresponding tavern across the street, with Genny Cream on tap at .30 a glass!), on private time and dime. By paying money, time and a great deal of effort to "celebrate diversity", I think we have risked straying toward balkanization (of immigrants as well as existing citizens) as opposed to unity as Americans.

    Once we have placed qualifiers on equality, as in "equalizing" equality through affirmative action, immersion programs, etc, often I think we risk subverting a warmhearted idea into providing the tools for exploitation--then we risk become a nation of assigned-seating victim groups as opposed to a variety of individuals from a variety of backgrounds who have in common the ideals of equality, opportunity and personal investment in the dream that we have all shared for centuries.

    I think this has impacted on Latino immigrants for several reasons: first, every wave has seen a backlash in its turn--the Irish were hated, the Poles and slavs in their turn, and how many had room for the Jews in the late 30s even with evidence of what was occuring in Germany? Second, when the wars were raging in central America, the influx of illegals had two strikes--the first was the fact that they were seen by some as jumping the line, and the second was that many were so poor that they were illiterate in their own language so that "bilingualism" (which for a while was a euphemism for Spanish-speaking) was not a real help to this wave.

    So many of these families were separated by the wars, and further divided when united here by the parents' need to work multiple jobs that we do see the gang issues that also plagued the country in the 50s and 60s in the major cities. The escalation of violence and weapons is (in my opinion) a factor of the change in times as opposed to the change in nationality of the immigrant base.

    I don't think our identity is being lost due to immigrants--if anything is being lost it is due to the groups who would exploit "diversity" in order to use victim groups as a base for power. If everyone is a victim, then we need groups who will mitgate that, and programs that will need people to track and serve that, and so on. I think basic tools of success don't change, which is often proved by the many who come here and do succeed without becoming a state-supported victim.

    The groups who promote and prey on victimhood are responsible for any changes in how immigration impacts our country, and I think if left to their own devices and supported blindly, it will weaken us.

    I just saw "The Incredibles" with my kids, and was intrigued by the subtle theme of "if everything is special, then nothing is". I think that factors in: we are all special as contributors to our country because of the equality we share. If we start parsing specialness, we become a set of groups vying for "special", instead of actually accomplishing much.

    Final note re religion in government (and schools, where tracking is a no no if you call it tracking--if we just have a wide variety of "gifted" programs, that's okay, right?)--if we are to have NO religion in government, when are we going to get the alternative religions out of government as well? I.e., why does my kid's math book have pictures of the rainforest in with multiplication? Why did the word problems in my daughter's text back in second grade all revolve around the environment, with the Greens (the good family) doing more to save the planet than the Browns (who didn't recycle at all)? Think about it. :)

    Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.
     
  4. Farscape

    Farscape New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that anybody is saying, "Yeah! Lets make abortions legal!". I think people feel more that every individual should be able to have a choice</u> on their own body and life. Whether someone agrees with it or not, it is not anybody else's place to judge. If "God" doesn't like what you did, it will be adressed when you pass, let "God" be the judge. People can have opinions, but they too often decide to force their opinions on others. The main thing is to prevent a person from having to consider such a drastic measure.
    -Sorry Carol, I didn't see your comment before I posted this. I will stop here.
     
  5. latka

    latka Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,216
    Likes Received:
    30
    Sorry Carol for the thread jack. To get to your questions, my belief is America's unique identity is individualism. America has historically treasured self-reliance and independent thinking.


    Our core values are best stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


    Are those values being lost due to immigration? Absolutly not, Those who immigrate to America in order to persue those individual rights and be the master of their own destiny can only act to strengthen those values. It's the resistannce to assimilate and embrace those values that is the problem.


    What is weakening our country is the struggle between capitalism and collectivism. America's founding principles have been subverted and our country is on a steady course toward socialism. Our four founding principles, the rule of law, individual rights, the guarantee of private property, and a common American identity are being replaced by group rights, redistribution and entitlements.



    lyo
     
  6. latka

    latka Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,216
    Likes Received:
    30

    We can adress this in another thread but, I am not in disagreement with you.

    lyo
     
  7. L0stS0ul

    L0stS0ul hmmmm

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    72
    Exactly. I see this as the problem as well. Communities are self segregating themselves and that will do nothing but hurt this country. It doesn't help that the government helps to foster this. Just look at the last national census. Your choices on the "type" of american you are were rediculous. We should all just be "American's" not all these types. The melding of cultures is what makes this country great. When different cultures won't meld issues will start to arise and conflict will begin to grow.

    Me, I just want to be able to go to McDonalds and know that I'll be able to communicate with the teller. I've actually had to leave the McDonalds in front of Best Buy without food because the lady could not understand the order I was trying to place (probably was better for my health to not eat McDonalds anyway :D ). What was worse was the manager did no better trying to take my order and I was not the only one. People were not getting the food they ordered. It was rediculous. Come on it's not that hard to understand "Big Mac".
     
  8. Barbara

    Barbara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    latka and lostsoul: I'm right there with you on assimilation as Americans, and individuals being responsible for their individuality.

    latka, I'm way right there with you on the capitalism/socialism concept. The "greater good" of special victims, who must be equalized to acheive equality, at what cost?

    Barbara Munsey, from South Riding.
     
  9. Carol Al-Ajroush

    Carol Al-Ajroush New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just how much influence and credence does someone like Huntington have?

    Here's an extract from the man himself to put his views into a better perspective for discussion:


    The Hispanic Challenge

    By Samuel P. Huntington Page 1 of 12


    March/April 2004

    The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves—from Los Angeles to Miami—and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril.


    America was created by 17th- and 18th-century settlers who were overwhelmingly white, British, and Protestant. Their values, institutions, and culture provided the foundation for and shaped the development of the United States in the following centuries. They initially defined America in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and religion. Then, in the 18th century, they also had to define America ideologically to justify independence from their home country, which was also white, British, and Protestant. Thomas Jefferson set forth this “creed,” as Nobel Prize-winning economist Gunnar Myrdal called it, in the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, its principles have been reiterated by statesmen and espoused by the public as an essential component of U.S. identity.

    This article is an excerpt
    from the forthcoming book
    Who Are We by Samuel
    Huntington.
    Order the book from
    Amazon now.




    By the latter years of the 19th century, however, the ethnic component had been broadened to include Germans, Irish, and Scandinavians, and the United States' religious identity was being redefined more broadly from Protestant to Christian. With World War II and the assimilation of large numbers of southern and eastern European immigrants and their offspring into U.S. society, ethnicity virtually disappeared as a defining component of national identity. So did race, following the achievements of the civil rights movement and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Americans now see and endorse their country as multiethnic and multiracial. As a result, American identity is now defined in terms of culture and creed.

    Most Americans see the creed as the crucial element of their national identity. The creed, however, was the product of the distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. Key elements of that culture include the English language; Christianity; religious commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, including the responsibility of rulers and the rights of individuals; and dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, and the belief that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on earth, a “city on a hill.” Historically, millions of immigrants were attracted to the United States because of this culture and the economic opportunities and political liberties it made possible.

    Contributions from immigrant cultures modified and enriched the Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers. The essentials of that founding culture remained the bedrock of U.S. identity, however, at least until the last decades of the 20th century. Would the United States be the country that it has been and that it largely remains today if it had been settled in the 17th and 18th centuries not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is clearly no. It would not be the United States; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil.


    In the final decades of the 20th century, however, the United States' Anglo-Protestant culture and the creed that it produced came under assault by the popularity in intellectual and political circles of the doctrines of multiculturalism and diversity; the rise of group identities based on race, ethnicity, and gender over national identity; the impact of transnational cultural diasporas; the expanding number of immigrants with dual nationalities and dual loyalties; and the growing salience for U.S. intellectual, business, and political elites of cosmopolitan and transnational identities. The United States' national identity, like that of other nation-states, is challenged by the forces of globalization as well as the needs that globalization produces among people for smaller and more meaningful “blood and belief” identities.

    In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American natives. Americans like to boast of their past success in assimilating millions of immigrants into their society, culture, and politics. But Americans have tended to generalize about immigrants without distinguishing among them and have focused on the economic costs and benefits of immigration, ignoring its social and cultural consequences. As a result, they have overlooked the unique characteristics and problems posed by contemporary Hispanic immigration. The extent and nature of this immigration differ fundamentally from those of previous immigration, and the assimilation successes of the past are unlikely to be duplicated with the contemporary flood of immigrants from Latin America. This reality poses a fundamental question: Will the United States remain a country with a single national language and a core Anglo-Protestant culture? By ignoring this question, Americans acquiesce to their eventual transformation into two peoples with two cultures (Anglo and Hispanic) and two languages (English and Spanish).

    The impact of Mexican immigration on the United States becomes evident when one imagines what would happen if Mexican immigration abruptly stopped. The annual flow of legal immigrants would drop by about 175,000, closer to the level recommended by the 1990s Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by former U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Illegal entries would diminish dramatically. The wages of low-income U.S. citizens would improve. Debates over the use of Spanish and whether English should be made the official language of state and national governments would subside. Bilingual education and the controversies it spawns would virtually disappear, as would controversies over welfare and other benefits for immigrants. The debate over whether immigrants pose an economic burden on state and federal governments would be decisively resolved in the negative. The average education and skills of the immigrants continuing to arrive would reach their highest levels in U.S. history. The inflow of immigrants would again become highly diverse, creating increased incentives for all immigrants to learn English and absorb U.S. culture. And most important of all, the possibility of a de facto split between a predominantly Spanish-speaking United States and an English-speaking United States would disappear, and with it, a major potential threat to the country's cultural and political integrity.
     
  10. DAD4

    DAD4 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow...Why order the book when we can read it here.
     
  11. flynnibus

    flynnibus Well-Known Member Forum Staff

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Messages:
    5,358
    Likes Received:
    250
    Seriously.. complain to McDonalds.. they take customer complaints seriously. you will be called back and usually compensated as well. Trust me, they do follow through (not saying the people will be gone.. but they will hear about the complaint directly)

    -Steve
     
  12. Carol Al-Ajroush

    Carol Al-Ajroush New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    The full book is a whopping 427 pages so you are missing alot! :D


     
  13. gammonbabe

    gammonbabe New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    You shouldn't have brought it up. The following has been written by my husband (a researcher and analyst) a few years ago. He gets in trouble with it on a regular basis, I figure I can get in trouble with it for a change.

    So what do you know about this Thanksgiving thing?

    We are all familiar with the traditional image of the original thanksgiving - the solemn pilgrims celebrating the year's harvest and giving thanks by eating turkey and pumpkin pie in November of 1621. However, almost all of this is false.

    1. The puritan settlers (a minority of the passengers of the Mayflower) at the first Thankgsgiving were not pilgrims. They called themselves "Saints". It was not until the 20th. century that the term "Pilgrims" was used to refer to the purtian settlers who settled at Plymouth Rock.

    2. It was not a solemn celebration. It was a three day festival with drinking, gambling, athletic games, and a musket target shooting competition (which also served as a demonstration to the Indians that the settlers were able to defend themselves).

    3. it did not take place in November but took place in early October (taking into account the diffeent calendars used then). Historian Richard Ehrlich states "b[by November] the villagers were busy working to prepare for the winter, slating and rying meat and making their houses as wind resistant as possible".

    4. They did not eat turkey as the main dish. "Pilrim" Edward Winslow wrote in his diary that the villagers did not care for the taste of turkey but much preferred venison. Eating deer was a special treat as it was most unusual to eat deer in europe. The otehr foods eaten included cod, bass, clams, oysters, uindian corn, berries, and plums. These were washed down with beer and liquer distilled from corn. If the pilgrims ate pumpkin, it was boiled and eaten as paste. The villagers did not have flour mills nor cows in 1621 - no flower, no milk, no pies.

    5. This was not repeated in the following year and historians can not find any reference for an "official" celebration in the following years.

    The actual history of the Thanksgiving Celebration

    OK, so this Thanksgiving image we have is bogus, but how did we start ths "tradition" that we have today? Well, as surprising as it may seem, it is a combination of the assassination of Prsident Lincoln, the depressed poultry market, and Christmas shopping.

    Early Presidents (specifically Washington, Adams, and Jefferson) attempted to formalize a celebration of the first Thanksgiving, but were unsuccesful.

    Up until the 1860s, Thanksgiving was celebrated almost exclusively in the Northern States, albeit not on the same day.

    In 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed TWO national days of Thanksgiving.

    1. August 6 to honor Union victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg
    2. November 26 (the last Thursday of the month) to celebrate a year "filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies".

    There was no intention to have these days celebrated in the following year. However, when General Sherman captured Atlanta in September 1864, the President declared that last Thursday in November a day of Thanksgiving for the second year in a row.

    After Presdient Lincoln was assassinated, President Johnson continued the celebration in the honor of President Lincoln. Following Presidents also continued this tradition to the point that by the 1890s nearly every state in the Union celebrated thanksgiving on the last Thursday in November.

    Retail stores in the 1920s started using Thanksgiving Day as the start of the Christmas shopping season. In 1921, the department store guimbles hosted their first Thanksgiving parade to "officially" start the Christmas shopping season.

    In 1939, the nation was still in the depression. Coincidentally, that year Thanksgiving Day (held on the last Thursday of November) fell on the last day in November. This left "only" 24 shopping days before Christmas. The retail store owners were worried that this "shorting" of the Christmas shopping season would impact their sales profits.

    In the spring of 1939, the National Retail Dry Goods Association lobbied President Roosevelt to move Thanksgiving Day back one week to November 23, stating that this move would boost sales by an additional 10%. FDR agreed and announced the change that summer.

    The presidential move of the holiday was not well received in both Congress and the states. Political lines were drawn to the extend that in 1939, 23 states celebrated Thanksgiving Day on 23 November, and 23 States celebrated on 30 November. Two states (Texas and Colorado) celebrated it on both days. Because of this confusion, political disagreement, and not to mention the continuing depression, retail sales did not increase but in fact declined for the next two Christmas seasons.

    In may 1941, President Roosevelt announced that starting in 1942, Thanksgiving would be celebrated on the last Thursday of November from now on.

    Congress, fearing that future Presidents might change this holiday at their whim, introduced legislation to make the change permanent. On November 26, 19041 FDR signed a compromise bill: Thanksgiving will always be held on the fourth Thursday of November, regardless if it was or was not the last Thursday of the month. We have celebrated Thanksgiving on this day ever since.

    So why turkey?

    Business historian Thomas DeBacco states that it ws the poultry industryu that introduced turkety to Thanksgiving shortly after the civil war. The poultry industry was suffering a severe depression after the Civil War. Polutry producers of New Jersy, Pennsylvania, and Maryland began an advertisign campaign to boost the sales of turkeys. WHY?

    Well, it was done because pound for pound more profit could be made from selling turkeys than any other poultry at that time. The polutry producers commissioned most of the popular artists of that day to start producing artwork showing families celebrating Thanksgiving Day eating turkey. These art works had to incorporate images of families, strong religious overtones, and family values - and most importantly, they had to show the families eating turkey.

    This early form of behavior research based advertising implanted the image of eating turkey on Thanksgiving with good family/religious values. It was so effective that even today, few can resist associating Thanksgiving with turkey.
     
  14. Homer Simpson

    Homer Simpson New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    You left out that the first thanksgiving was actually in Jamestown a full ten years before the first pilgrim one. The Jamestown settlers were not particularly fanatic about religion (i.e. salem witch trials) and were more like armed civilian militia type group.

    The decision to make Thanksgiving be about the pilgrims was because the were perceived to be more moral then the guys down here. It was all an effort to make a "founding fathers" myth for the country.
     
  15. gammonbabe

    gammonbabe New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    This nation consists of almost only immigrants. The only Americans that are not immigrants are the American Indians. If the man has a problem with immigrants because they water down our culture and our values, he is saying that he has a problem with almost every American.

    There is no American culture. What is culture here has been brought from many nations. Values? There are many different values, depending on where a family came from.

    Marianne
     
  16. gammonbabe

    gammonbabe New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are morals? What your religion tells you is moral? What another religion says is moral? What I say is moral?

    Morals are personal choices that we make in our interactions with other people. For you abortion may be morally wrong. For someone else it may not be. For me personally it would be morally wrong, that's why I have four children. But legally it is not wrong, legally women have the right to choose and I will fight for that right.

    To me my morals are only important in the way I act ... nobody else is expected to adhere to my morals, ever.

    marainne
     
  17. gammonbabe

    gammonbabe New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course I will also post on your thread, not only on the hijacked pieces. :)

    To get back on topic... how about some remarks on:

    -what do you view as America's identity?

    A nation where everyone can live the way they choose within the boundaries of the law.

    -what do you view as America's core values?

    The right to pursue happiness in my life. If I am gay and it makes me happy to get married, I have that right. If I'm a redneck and it makes me happy to live in a compound in the mountains, I have that right. If I'm an agnostic who is happy when not being drawn into anyones organized religion, I have that right.
     
  18. Carol Al-Ajroush

    Carol Al-Ajroush New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tell ya, the more I read of his book, the wearier I get. It's a provocative read but he just jumps around too much. At one juncture you think his primary point in the watering down of America's identity and values is due specifically to the influx of Hispanic immigrants. Then he jumps to a comparison between the Cold War and view of the former Soviet regime and comparisons to how Muslims and islamic militants are viewed and perceived and what threats are posed.

    His book does remind me of similar questions being raised about Canada...that Canadians were losing a sense of identity as Canadians because of the influx of Indians and Pakistanis. Well, I think that these are simply issues that any nation such as Canada and the USA have to face and accept by being free democratic nations.

    Yes I do think that naturally our identity and values are changing due to the immigration of more individuals from other regions. America initially started as a melting point for Europeans and that has gradually shifted more to Hispanics, Asians, etc and of course there would be some changes. But I think that is also part of our distinction too.

    Does this also mean that there should be more enforcement about knowledge of the US, the Constitution, the English language? Perhaps...

    Okay...I'll step off my soapbox for a while now! &lt;g&gt;
     
  19. latka

    latka Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,216
    Likes Received:
    30
    Marainne....to me morals are a code of conduct not a relgious one but an instinctual knowledge of right and wrong. If I believe abortion is killing, not murder, a legal term , but killing which is what I believe, then I will judge those who make that choice. Everybody sits in judgement of behavior that violates their morals. As for the legality of abortion, the act is legal and while I think it's sad, I understand that others disagree and I can accept that.

    lyo
     
  20. exrook

    exrook New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, from the Virginia Tourism Corporation website:

    The First Thanksgiving at Berkeley
    History records that the first Thanksgiving occurred when Captain John Woodlief - a veteran of Jamestown who had survived its "starving time" of 1608 and 1609 - led his crew and passengers from their ship to a grassy slope along the James River for the New World's first Thanksgiving service on Dec. 4, 1619. There, the English colonists dropped to their knees and prayed as the British company expedition sponsor had instructed.

    Today, on the site where Woodlief knelt, a brick gazebo contains the following inscribed words: "Wee ordaine that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantacon in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God."


    Seems fairly religious to me :)

    From another website I found:

    No. 1. In 1586, the first thanksgiving held by Englishmen on the North American continent took place on Roanoke Island, North Carolina. This celebration was by the company of 100 men from Cornwall, England that Sir Walter Raleigh had brought to America to found a colony. After a year when the relief ship arrived, they held a thanksgiving dinner, and fed-up with the hardships and perils, they all went home.

    No. 2. In 1609, at Jamestown, Virginia, the starving remnants of the first settlers held a thanksgiving dinner while awaiting the arrival of their relief ship.

    No. 3. In 1612, also at Jamestown, Virginia, a dinner was held after the arrival of Governor Dale with a ship-load of girls intended to become the wives of the settlers.

    No. 4. In 1619, a dinner of thanks was held at Berkley Plantation on the James River in Virginia.

    No. 5. In 1621, at Plymouth Plantation, a great dinner of thanks was held. Pilgrim Edward Winslow in a letter of December 11, 1621, to a friend in England, described their First Thanksgiving (as printed in Mourt's Relation) as follows.


    "Our harvest being gotten in our Governor sent four men on fowling, so we might after a more special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They, four, in one day killed as much fowl as with a little beside, served the company almost a week. At which time amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest King Massasoit with some 90 men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted. And they went out and killed five deer which they brought to the Plantation, and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others."
    This latter Thanksgiving dinner is the one that has survived and became the National Holiday.



    Being an ex-Navy man (from back before women served on combatants), I can identify with no. 3 above :D.
     

Share This Page