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.
This speech was banned from the Plymouth Thanksgiving commemoration in 1970 because it directly attacks white people and their ancestors for murdering, enslaving, and destroying the Wampanoags. Hundreds of years of history had displayed the Native Americans as uncivilized, savage, and unintelligent, but Wamsutta directly combats this and explains that that's the history that the early white settlers wanted you to see. In the speech, Wamsutta deems it important to remind everyone that, "the Indian is and was just as human as the white man. The Indian feels pain, gets hurt, and becomes defensive, has dreams, bears tragedy and failure, suffers from loneliness, needs to cry as well as laugh." This directly goes against who most white people believed the Native Americans to be as a group of people, and acknowledging that the Native Americans were equal to them would mean acknowledging the pain and suffering that their ancestors had caused.
ReplyDeleteThe speech does directly attack white people's beliefs and actions, which would explain why it was banned. Indians were identified as savages and due to these lies, many people today believe so as well. However, Wamsutta was simply bringing the truth on display, which was something that the English didn't take lightly.
DeleteI agree, the whites in New England were used to be being the top class, so when some "upstart" comes and shows them the hard facts, they're probably upset. They liked the power, so when there was even a small chance it would be taken away, they kicked him out. The only reason that they even wanted to have a native at their party was to seem nice and diverse, and in the end it was revealed that they were anything but.
DeleteThey were never stood up to directly. They needed a wake up call that called THEM out. When one was delivered they shut t down. Tis was out of fear for their pride as well as power.They couldn't deflect these facts as liesand that scared them. -Isaiah
DeleteI agree. The speech was trying to hide what really happened to the Indians in the past and they people in high power must have though that it is better to straight up hide that information.
DeleteI agree because in history you see natives being described as ruthless people that couldn't settle and savages that had no idea how to build a respectable society. because they show natives in this way it allowed the English to seem like good gracious people that helped them leave those ways.
DeleteI agree because the actions of the natives were completely out of balance and changed by the Europeans to make the natives sound as if they were threatening when they were kind of nice.
DeleteI definitely agree -- his speech went against every lie that had been taught for centuries, and the white people who banned him from speaking weren't capable of facing the truth.
ReplyDeleteBased on the speech, I can determine that this speech was banned simply because it was too inappropriate (in an English person's point of view). If the speech was said and spread, it would display ideas and beliefs that would stain the English name. Not only that, but his speech shows sympathy to the Indians, something that was highly frowned upon during Wamsutta's time. I can automatically tell that James was an activist, since he claims in his speech that "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." Since it was believed that the speech was praising the Indians and disapproving the actions of the English, it was banned. He also claims in his speech that the Indians were considered lower than a normal white man, something that he thought was inhumane. It says in his speech, "Time and time again, in the white man's society, we Indians have been termed "low man on the totem pole." Wamsutta's speech was highly suppressed due to its reformist ideas that would put down the English and put the Indians into a new light, showing a new perspective that many English people believed would have major consequences if it was spoken out loud.
ReplyDeleteExactly this -- the people who banned his speech couldn't stand the idea of having to reshape their entire belief system surrounding Native Americans, so they banned the speech and went on with their lives.
DeleteI agree, this speech was banned simply because it was making the English the bad guys and showing everyone how evil the English were with the Native Americans.
DeleteI agree that this speech was banned because it made the English look bad and brought up things they didn't like or agree with
DeleteI agree that one reason the speech was banned was because it showed the englishpeople as the bad guys.
DeleteI agree because it knocked out their entire perception of reality and they couldn't have anything challenge their thoughts so they banned it.
DeleteI agree, because the English were in denial about their treatment of the Natives.
DeleteI agree the topics and the views of the speech were not good in comparison to the Europeans because they denied all of the bad treatment they gave the natives.
DeleteThe fact the he had to present his speech to select Englishmen first shows he would be silenced if they did not like what was told, and that the English underestimated the natives.
DeleteBelieving that the speech would undo everything that the English were praising, they banned the speech. Wamsutta was just saying the truth and was penalized for doing so.
ReplyDeleteThe speech by Wamsutta was rejected because it made the white people feel like they weren't as American as the natives. In most textbooks in the 1970's, it was told the Columbus founded America and made the native people seem like savages. Wamsutta exposed how his culture and people were taken away from their tribe, due to, at least in some part, the Native American Cultural Assimilation Era. This was a prolonged act in which Native American children were placed into American boarding schools, in order to wipe them of their culture as much as possible. Additionally, Wamsutta was also revealing the Americans as the bad guy, and although true, is not something most people want to hear near a holiday like Thanksgiving. Wamsutta was simply revealing his observation and beliefs to the party, but it seemed too much like defiance to white society, otherwise known as the New England area. (80% of New England is Caucasian.) The whites there were probably scared of what this speech might reveal about their "heritage," so they censored and silenced him.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the speech belittled the "Americans" and that was something they weren't used to. They didn't know what to do so they shut it down. Their pride couldn't take the truth so. they banned the speech.-Isaiah
DeleteI agree, it was kind of going against everyone's education embedded in them as small children, which was probably a trigger point.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the speech was banned because the people were afraid of what the speech would uncover. The speech clearly states how the Wampanoags were oppressed saying, "I am a product of poverty and discrimination from these two social and economic diseases." This was an prominent issue yet it wasn't talked about. I believe fear drived them to ban this speech therefore ensuring that the issue wasn't adressed and therefore their was no response. To see someone speak out is inspiring. It might influence others and open their eyes. That was a threat to the people who were trying to keep the Wampanoags oppressed, and that is why they banned the speech.-Isaiah
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It was about how the colonizers could see no aspect of what they were doing to Native Americans, and it was difficult for them to see another point of view.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnce I finished reading the speech, I determined that the speech was banned. From the point of view from the English, it was inappropriate, simply because the speech revealed things that would damage the reputation of the English. Things such as how Columbus made the natives seem as savages, how the English's ancestors attacked, murdered and destroyed the Wampanoag's, and simply the fact that the English has done things to the Native Americans that they don't want out. This speech made the English the bad guys in the story. Wamsutta states "the Indian is and was just as human as the white man. The Indian feels pain, gets hurt, and becomes defensive, has dreams, bears tragedy and failure, suffers from loneliness, needs to cry as well as laugh." This is him saying that the Native Americans are human beings, and that they are not "savages", like the English's ancestors deemed them to be.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the speech was banned because it made the English look bad and that the English at the time disagreed with the parts of the speech about the Native Americans as well.
DeleteI believe that this speech was rejected because it would show too much of the truth and people in power may not want citizens to know these things or if they already knew then they didn't want it to be recognized or change the way they currently live and treat the Indians better. A quote from the speech states, "I am a product of poverty and discrimination" This clearly states that the indians even at that point of America were being discriminated upon and the people in power didn't wan that to change. If they did then they would have allowed the speech to be spoken and they would have started to make change. But they didn't they chose to not let him speak and suppress how the Indians as a whole really feel.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this speech would tell too much and would force the people in power to fix what they have broken, which was something they wanted to avoid at all costs.
DeleteI agree. Especially where you said it would go against the lies that were fed to the natives. The Englishmen didn't want change because they must have felt that their civilization was fine. They didn't need to change for the Indians and for this reason they must have suppressed the speech.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Wamsutta's speech was banned because it revealed the brutal truth about the arrival of the white man in America. It revealed that the white man treated the Natives awfully and stole their homeland. I think the white organizers would realize it would ruin the whole event because once the truth was revealed, many people would be celebrating a bloody massacre. They wanted to stick to the storybook tale that all was well between the Natives and the English, as it would help their reputation and their party.
ReplyDeleteI agree because this speech unveiled all of the ugly truths about what really happened when the white man arrived in America.
DeleteI agree strongly. The speech revealed that the natives were a civilized society that the English brutally took over.
ReplyDeleteThe Wamsutta's speech was most likely banned because it exposed the white explorers for their disrespect and dishonesty. In his speech, he explains how they were "atrocities" with "broken promises." The white man's main goal was to conquer the land and they were willing to do anything for it. This was how they would "prove his worth," so they played the Natives and took advantage of their goodwill. This speech brings light to all of the horrible things the English did to them, running their name through the dirt. The Wamsutta's speech was banned simply because it told the truth about the English and threatened to ruin their reputation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the speech was banned because it offered the reality of history that juxtaposes the version that our society blindly accepts. He tells us that the story we feed to kids from a young age of thanks and peace and shows us that its a version we helplessly cling to in order to hide the one that really happened. he says things how they were without getting rid of all the parts that we deny a part in society. the message because of its juxtaposition makes it that the people who would be listening to it wouldn't and couldn't hear their candy being ripped from them and been handed spinach.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this speech was taken away in order to stop the knowledge of an accurate version of the truth to become widespread.
Deletei agree because when you look to the English's depictions of natives you see uncivilized people instead who they really were
ReplyDeleteI believed the speech was banned because it displayed the actions of the English settlers in a very negative light, contradicting everything what they wanted us to believe. He tells that the story of the Wamponoag and the settlers was not as peaceful as we were taught in the history lessons and told us the truth. The speech was banned was because it exposed the lies we were taught and shed the light on what really happened.
ReplyDeleteA quote that supported this was "Time and time again, in the white man's society, we Indians have been termed "low man on the totem pole."
DeleteI also believe that the speech was rejected due to the fact that it portrayed Thanksgiving a a negative light.
DeleteI agree because it depicted what the English settlers did as wrong and would cause controversy among those wishing to expose the truth vs those believing in the lies they were taught.
ReplyDeleteI think that the speech was banned for a combination of factors, one being that it shed light on the fact that the American Indians were a civilized people and two, by extension it showed how horrible the things the English were doing to them and it explains the English's broken promises and atrocities towards what the document reveals to be a civilized people.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and also think that either the organizers or the audience must have still clung to old stories that aren't accurate.
DeleteI agree because it shows that the people that the English were brutally slaughtering were a civilized one with thoughts, feelings and pain.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the speech was rejected was because lines like "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."" force the people to realize how horrible their actions were, and they were still in denial, trying to pretend that the "The white man used the Indian's nautical skills and abilities. They let him be only a seaman -- but never a captain. Time and time again, in the white man's society, we Indians have been termed "low man on the totem pole."
ReplyDeleteI agree that the speech forced listeners to acknowledge certain truths.
DeleteI also agree that the speech also could've been rejected as people wouldn't want to accept any difficult truths.
DeleteI agree, because the speech was showing the truths that the settlers didn't want to see.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNOTE: my old comment didn't have a quote
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason that the speech was rejected was because it disagreed with a popular belief. Many of the people who were the audience of this speech may have still clung to old, inaccurate stories, so the organizers of the event banned the speech. As the preface to the speech states "The planners, however , asked to see his speech in advance of the occasion, and it turned out that Frank James' views — based on history rather than mythology — were not what the Pilgrims' descendants wanted to hear."
I think this speech was rejected cause it showed that Native Americans could be equal to and maybe even better then some white peopl. This idea can scare those who may see themselves as more or better than them. This quote, “ We can now speak his language. We can now think as a white man thinks. We can now compete with him for the top jobs.” Shows that Native Americans might be more equal to white people then we think.
ReplyDeleteI think your point is interesting. I thought of the speech more as pointing out how unjust the Pilgrims were toward the Wampanoag, not really about which group was superior.
DeleteYeah the speech really showed us how our history books might not always be right.
ReplyDeleteThe speech was rejected due to the fact that it basically tore down what Thanksgiving was to every American. It slanders the holiday into what it really is, further describing how the American Indians were unjustly treated by white settlers and colonizers. As the speech states, "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." Speaking such a widely different iddea of Thanksgiving would be rejected.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this speech was banned by the organizers of the event of the Plymouth Thanksgiving commemoration in 1970 because white people were scared that it would inspire a revolution. Since it is a fact that the colonizers took the Native peoples lands it is only natural that they feel they deserve and want that land their ancestors had been stolen from. Since this speech was tinged with traces of disapproval about the colonizers from the native American perspective the white people might've were scared that this opinion would spread. If that happend; a revolution for power could have possibly occurred. For instance in the speech it says, "Our presence here this evening is living testimony that this is only the beginning of the American Indian, particularly the Wampanoag, to regain the position in this country that is rightfully ours." This quote proves how he white people were probably scared that this speech might reveal disturbing facts about their "heritage," so they censored this speech and silenced it along with its message.
ReplyDeleteThis speech was banned by the organizers of the event because they felt that it was not in the spirit of the anniversary celebration they had planned. They probably expected the speech to be about how well the Pilgrims and the Wampanoags got along, so when they read this, they must have been upset. As Wamsutta states in his speech, "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 shows that from the Wampanoag perspective, the Pilgrims took everything from them. This was not the sentiment that the organizers envisioned. Clearly, there was controversy over how the Pilgrims treated the Wampanoags, and the organizers didn't want people to hear from the Wampanoag perspective.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Europeans portrayed the Natives as the bad guys. They made it seem like the Natives weren't capable of many tasks, when really they needed the Natives to survive. It was the Europeans, in fact, who were the invaders.
ReplyDeleteThis speech was banned because it showed how the Europeans were mostly to blame. The text says "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." and " We, the Wampanoag, welcomed you, the white man, with open arms, little knowing that it was the beginning of the end". The Europeans started problems that could have been avoided if they befriended the Natives.
ReplyDelete