Thread: Let Us Remember the True Meaning of Thanksgiving Before It’s Abolished

This year as President Bush pardoned two turkeys, who surprisingly had nothing to do with the Savings and Loan scandals of the 1980s, he remarked that it was his “last Thanksgiving as President.” But it might be the last Thanksgiving any of us celebrate since there is a good chance that when Barack Obama takes over, he will abolish Thanksgiving along with other holidays liberals hate such as Columbus Day, Christmas and the Fourth of July.

Unfortunately, liberals have distorted the history and meaning of Thanksgiving because they see everything through the ideology of victimhood, which is a glass-half-empty view of history. Thanksgiving to liberals is a celebration of purported genocide against the Indians perpetrated by the Christian pilgrims. But in fact this is not what Thanksgiving is about at all. As usual liberals are ignoring the real victims here.

Thanksgiving celebrates the day that Pilgrims and Indians sat down to eat together before the gay secularist Indians divided this country and tried to foist their atheism and savage decadent culture on the God-fearing pilgrims. The pilgrims were rightly appalled by Native American culture where transgendered “two-spirit” people or “berdache” were accepted as normal members of the tribe. To Native Americans, who were ignorant of the Bible’s proscriptions against homosexuality and running around practically naked, there was nothing wrong with squaws marrying squaws and braves marrying braves. The pilgrims did not care what Indians did in the privacy of their own teepees, but they did not want their children exposed to this immorality. So the pilgrims were forced to defend themselves, just as Proposition 8 supporters, under assault from gay activists, must defend themselves now.

The idea that pilgrims defending their way of life committed genocide is a gross distortion of history, as Mona Charen and Michael Medved point out. “In the clash of civilizations between European settlers and Native Americans, millions died,” Charen writes. “But the overwhelming majority of those deaths were attributable to diseases carried involuntarily by Europeans and spread to natives who had no natural immunities to these pathogens. That is a tragedy, but not a crime.” Medved's new book The 10 Big Lies About America reveals the truth behind the "smears" that slavery was such a big deal or that genocide was committed against the Indians, which has ruined Thanksgiving for so many people. For example, he points out that the idea that Europeans had anything to do with willfully spreading disease through small pox-infected blankets is a myth. “The endlessly recycled charges of biological warfare rest solely on controversial interpretations of two unconnected and inconclusive incidents 74 years apart,” says the film critic, who screened hours of John Ford westerns to verify his findings. Sure, there may have been a few little massacres, such as the Trail of Tears, the Sand Creek Massacre and Wounded Knee but most Indians died of diseases whose spread was no doubt hastened by their decadence and promiscuity.

Of course, it didn’t have to be that way. If the Native Americans had left the Europeans alone and stopped trying to foist their way of life on them there would be more Indian-operated casinos in America today. When we celebrate Thanksgiving, we are celebrating what America might have been if Indians hadn’t started the culture war that divides us to this day. Just as the Indians tried to foist their culture on the pilgrims, gays today are trying to force gay marriage on Christians and they seem surprised when Christians fight back to preserve their culture. If gays want to say they’re married that’s fine with me, just don’t force us to recognize it or give it legal standing. Then you are impinging on my rights.

Some gay conservatives, such as GayPatriotWest, understand that they should just be thankful for what they have. They have the freedom to practice whatever vile acts they want to practice behind closed, double-locked doors and we have the freedom not to have to know about it. As long as they don’t make the same mistake the Indians made, we can all live together in peace and harmony.

It’s no wonder that liberals hate Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is a celebration of freedom. As GayPatriotWest points out “in practical, definable terms, the daily threats to my liberty are not being pushed by religious conservatives.” Our freedom is under assault in more important ways than whether the Mr. and Mr. GayPatriotWests of the world can register at Bloomingdale’s and visit each other in the hospital and file joint tax returns and not get evicted from their home or inherit money or property if one of them dies or be separated by deportation if one of them is an illegal alien. Liberals are trying to take away more important freedoms like the right to smoke in bars or eat trans fats or buy political influence or own assault rifles (which would have come in quite handy if settlers had had them to ward off Indian attacks).

So this Thanksgiving let us remember and celebrate a time when there was no culture war and gay secularist Indians and religious conservative pilgrims could sit down together and smoke a peace pipe without having to worry about anti-smoking laws and consume all the trans-fat-laden delicacies they wanted, with their guns and bows and arrows stashed under their seats just within reach.

Thoughts? Questions? Comments?

I think it's bullshit, but I'll comment anyways.


So the pilgrims immigrated to this new land. Found that they didn't like the people there. So they defend themselves against this 'unholy' culture. Pilgrims are in the right. mmm hmmm.

It's very similar to the whole controversy of say, Muslims coming to western countries. You know, blah blah "too many Christian undertones in society, respect our stupid beliefs" blah blah "this is a Christian country, leave if you don't like it." Wonder which side the author would be one for this issue? mmm hmmm

This type of bullshit always reminds me of a study done by Israeli psychologist George Tamarin.

Tamarin presented to more than a thousand Israeli school children, aged between eight and fourteen, the account of the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua:

Joshua said to the people, 'Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction. . . But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.'. . . Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword. . . And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

Tamarin then asked the children a simple moral question: 'Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?' They had to choose between A (total approval), B (partial approval) and C (total disapproval). The results were polarized: 66 percent gave total approval and 26 percent total disapproval, with rather fewer (8 percent) in the middle with partial approval. Here are three typical answers from the total approval (A) group:

In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.

In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.

Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

The justification for the genocidal massacre by Joshua is religious in every case. Even those in category C, who gave total disapproval, did so, in some cases, for backhanded religious reasons. One girl, for example, disapproved of Joshua's conquering Jericho because, in order to do so, he had to enter it:

I think it is bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse.

Two others who totally disapproved did so because Joshua destroyed everything, including animals and property, instead of keeping some as spoil for Israelites:

I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.

I think Joshua did not act well, as he could have left the property of Jericho; if he had not destroyed the property it would have belonged to the Israelites.

Tamarin ran a fascinating control group in his experiment. A different group of 168 Israeli children were given the same text from the book of Joshua, but with Joshua's own name replaced by 'General Lin' and 'Israel' replaced by 'a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago'. Now the experiment gave opposite results. Only 7 per cent approved of General Lin's behavior, and 75 percent disapproved. In other words, when their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the children agreed with the moral judgments that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide. But it all looks different from a religious point of view. And the difference starts early in life. It was religion that made the difference between children condemning genocide and condoning it.

Perhaps just a thought:

Muslim extremists, Christian extremists, Jewish extremists and so on always surprise me with their similarities yet they don't see it. Yet it seems to be their mission to liberate us liberals and moderates to save us from ourselves. And the political extremists tend to align them-selfs with the religious zealots closest to their ideology.

actually Thanksgiving is about an attempt to spread the wealth and it going horribly wrong.that is true not a made up story like above.

oh man you mean that if they abolish thanksgiving then I won't get a 4 day weekend in november any more... that is just totaly unacceptable..

Thanksgiving was about those pilgrims being so suprised they'd managed to survive and prosper they had a party, and they invited their injun friends because the white girls weren't putting out and didn't believe in taking baths, either.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Thanksgiving was about those pilgrims being so suprised they'd managed to survive and prosper they had a party, and they invited their injun friends because the white girls weren't putting out and didn't believe in taking baths, either.

They didn't invite shit. They used and abused.

Please STFU and quit spreading propaganda. Listening to your ass I feel like I'm in church.

How horrible that he'd dare make fun of the Natives who got fucked over so many times. Righties like him are exactly what is wrong with this country.

Originally Posted by TenGig

I think it's bullshit, but I'll comment anyways.


So the pilgrims immigrated to this new land. Found that they didn't like the people there. So they defend themselves against this 'unholy' culture. Pilgrims are in the right. mmm hmmm.

It's very similar to the whole controversy of say, Muslims coming to western countries. You know, blah blah "too many Christian undertones in society, respect our stupid beliefs" blah blah "this is a Christian country, leave if you don't like it." Wonder which side the author would be one for this issue? mmm hmmm

This type of bullshit always reminds me of a study done by Israeli psychologist George Tamarin.

I never truly bought into the BS about Israel being a fellow democracy. They are a millitaristic and somewhat totalitarian society that brainwashes it's youth to hate Arabs.

Of course the Palistinians do the same damn thing, mind you.