Michelle Malkin » The war on Thanksgiving

The war on Thanksgiving

By Michelle Malkin • November 13, 2007 03:57 PM

The annual war on Thanksgiving begins. Via Orbusmax, the Seattle schools are using the holiday to indulge in oppression studies 101:

Dear Seattle Public Schools Staff:

We recognize the amount of work that educators and staff have to do in order to fulfill our mission to successfully educate all students. It’s never as simple as preparing and delivering a lesson. Students bring with them a host of complexities including cultural, linguistic and social economic diversity. In addition they can also bring challenges related to their social, emotional and physical well being. One of our departments’ goals is to support you by suggesting ways to assist you in removing barriers to learning by promoting respect and honoring the diversity of our students, staff and families.

With so many holidays approaching we want to again remind you that Thanksgiving can be a particularly difficult time for many of our Native students. This website http://www.oyate.org/resources/shortthanks.html offers suggestions on ways to be sensitive of diverse experiences and perspectives and still make the holiday meaningful for all students. Here you will discover ways to help you and your students think critically, and find resources where you can learn about Thanksgiving from a Native American perspective. Eleven myths are identified about Thanksgiving, take a look at #11 and begin your own deconstruction.

Myth #11: Thanksgiving is a happy time
Fact: For many Indian people, “Thanksgiving” is a time of mourning, of remembering how a gift of generosity was rewarded by theft of land and seed corn, extermination of many from disease and gun, and near total destruction of many more from forced assimilation. As currently celebrated in this country, “Thanksgiving” is a bitter reminder of 500 years of betrayal returned for friendship.

Look, I’m all for truthful, historically accurate lessons about Thanksgiving. But the “diversity”-peddlers’ agenda is not about historical accuracy. It’s about guilt-mongering and institutional racism indoctrination. One American Indian teacher struck the right balance last year:

Even American Indians are divided on how to approach a holiday that some believe symbolizes the start of a hostile takeover of their lands.

Chuck Narcho, a member of the Maricopa and Tohono O’odham tribes who works as a substitute teacher in Los Angeles, said younger children should not be burdened with all the gory details of American history.

“If you are going to teach, you need to keep it positive,” he said. “They can learn about the truths when they grow up. Caring, sharing and giving — that is what was originally intended.”

But that wouldn’t fit into the Blame America narrative, would it?

Tear up your kids’ construction-paper headdresses pronto and prepare for an Unhappy Un-Thanksgiving.

Posted in: Education

Regular View

comments (186)

trackbacks (31)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#172332

On November 15th, 2007 at 5:19 am, Prime Director said:

Bear1909, I’ve enjoyed your posts, except for one small detail:

It is correct that the concept of “owning” land parcels was not in the lexicon of respective tribes.

I dispute that.

As Dine, you might be interested in an article published by University of New Mexico professor Kenneth Bobroff.

Retelling Allotment: Indian Property Rights and the Myth of Common Ownership

The conventional understanding, shared by scholars, judges, policymakers, and activists alike, has been that allotment failed because it imposed individual ownership on people who had never known private property. Before allotment, so this story goes, Indians had always owned their land in common. Because Indians had no conception of private property, they were unable to adjust to the culture of private land rights and were easy targets for non-Indians anxious to acquire their land. Professor Bobroff argues that this story is wrong. Attempting to draw on often ignored Indian voices and considering anthropological and historical accounts, he reviews evidence that before allotment and continuing on reservations today, Native American societies have had a wide range of property systems. These native property systems vary across climates, resources, cultures, and historical periods, but many have recognized private property rights in land. Bobroff argues that allotment failed not because Indians had never known private property, but because it imposed a single dysfunctional property system on all Indian tribes and prohibited those tribes from changing it. Once an Indian reservation was allotted, tribal property laws were replaced and could no longer evolve. They could only be changed, quite literally, by an act of Congress. This insight into allotment is important because it suggests that the solution to the problem of highly fractionated Indian land titles is neither, as previous reforms attempted, to return all allotted land to tribal ownership nor to remove all restrictions from allotted lands. Rather, the solution lies with tribes and allotment owners reestablishing functional property systems that allow efficient use and rational inheritance of allotted lands

Kip Bobroff joined the law faculty in 1997 after working in the Navajo Nation, first for DNA-People’s Legal Services, then as a founder of the Navajo Land Owners Rights Project.
#172443

On November 15th, 2007 at 10:08 am, ThatSamIAm said:

Only in the U.S. can small groups of people force the large majority to stand down based on “feelings” and things that happened decades and centuries ago. If every country gave up lands taken through wars and other means I don’t think it would suddently make everything fine today. And I don’t see our Native Americans looking to give up their casino rights or tax exemptions either. Wasn’t that done to make an attempt at atonement? Oh for the day we can go back to being just Americans and not guilting others for a past they did not participate in. At this rate our great grandchildren will still be apologizing for any bad their ancestors could have been involved with.
#172524

On November 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am, TimDenchanter said:

On November 14th, 2007 at 5:21 pm, 24Klady said:

The war on Christmas/Thanksgiving or any other holiday we hold dear is not simply against those brought or celebrated by Europeans. It’s against anything called patriotism, love of country, and shared family values.

Well said!
This is yet another volley in the attack on every person who has good feelings about this country.
It is a continuation of the movement in the 60s to destroy this country from within.

A Russian coworker at my company proudly says he is no longer Russian, but AMERICAN (his emphasis) because he became a legal citizen in 1983. His tales of how the Russian people experienced the 60s have been enlightening. According to him, they used to read regular articles in Pravda about how successful the KGB agents were in using the naive, uneducated, drugged-out hippies to attack the US Government. He said the Russian people developed a very low opinion of the children of our country because they had been raised so spoiled that they could be fooled into destroying their own country.

Discussions with this coworker have only reinforced my opinion that our greatest generation gave birth to our worst. Growing up as a child while watching these “young adults” attack our veterans constantly nauseated me and I always felt powerless to do anything about it. I was born a year after Kennedy was shot, so by the time I started retaining memories, the 60s were over. I was in grade school during Watergate, being taught religion by one of these “new age” people, so I was truly unable to do much more than spend lots of time in detention for opposing her views.

The good news is, now I am 42, have almost established myself, and am preparing to enter politics. After decades of bitching about it, I am finally getting off my ass and DOING something about it. Eventually, I want to replace Dodd.

The point is this:

The constant attacks on our country can no longer be tolerated and those of us who were powerless back then should get involved now.

These constant attempts to erode and destroy our culture by hippy wannabes with romanticized notions of the 60s must be met and countered so that they do not repeat the victories they won back then. It’s time we reminded the world what makes this country, and its citizens, the shining example to the rest of the world. We must oppose the negative slant on our history and remember the positive achievements made while this country matured. In that effort, I now re-post the list of things we and the world can be grateful for this coming Thanksgiving Day:

Gifts from the United States of America (especially its Veterans) for which the World and the Human Race can be Thankful:

1.) Although the Greeks invented Democracy and Parliament gave power to the people, it was the United States of America which gave the world the idea of Free Elections and Government BY the People FOR the People, not by elite families for wealthy merchants.

2.) We were the first to promote the idea of Religious Freedom instead of religious suppression by the government.

3.) While we were at it, we also promoted Freedom of Speech, outlawing government censorship.

4.) We invented the idea of equal opportunity for all people of all classes and social standing.

5.) As an encore, we were the first to say that Slavery is Wrong and that ALL men should be free and equal.

6.) We continued that thought to be the first to say that Men and Women should be equal with equal opportunities.

7.) When all the above started taking too long to be accepted, we started movements and organizations to promote Equal Rights and protect Civil Liberties.

8.) We opposed Tyranny and Oppression, at home and abroad, believing that Democracy, Freedom, Liberty, and Equality should be enjoyed by ALL people so that they can prosper.

9.) When the rest of the world got out of control and the forces of hatred threatened to reign supreme, we stepped up to lead the Allies to Victory over the forces of genocide.

10.) While Nazi Germany fell because it could not fight a World War on two fronts, we not only helped defeat the Axis Powers, but we also defeated the Imperial aggression of Japan BY OURSELVES, proving that we could do what Hitler’s “perfect race” could not: win a war on two fronts.

11.) After that terrible war, we were the ones to invent a policy of Helping our defeated foes instead of oppressing them, knowing that a prosperous people would have less incentive to wage war, thus showing the world how to use Mercy to end the cycle of Vengeance.

12.) We taught the world during the Cold War that you CAN win a war by showing restraint and not actually having a war.

13.) Time and again, we have championed the cause of the oppressed and promoted the idea of prosperity for all by fighting tyranny, genocide, slavery, religious persecution, and all the evils that megalomaniacs are known for.

14.) When natural disasters and tragedies occur, we are the first to rush to the aid of the victims, offering comfort, support, assistance, medicine, supplies, and necessities, thus showing that our respect for all life is not just a slogan.

15.) We invented the idea of the United Nations, first as the League of Nations, then as the United Nations, even hosting it on our own soil, and we are STILL waiting for the members of the United Nations to get the freaking idea!
#172630

On November 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm, bear1909 said:

I dispute that.

I think your addendum from the New Mexico gent actually supports what I said, which was

“The treaties created a legal basis for tribal control of lands, or ownership. When the treaties were broken, it set the stage for what has been referred to as theft.

The treaties were not based in Indian culture (to use a very convenient shorthand here).

The treaties were the US government’s way of bringing various Indian sovereign nations under its control.

It is correct that the concept of “owning” land parcels was not in the lexicon of respective tribes.

But that is not the basis for allegations of theft. ”

I used the term “lexicon” for a specific reason- to address the position of “owning land” not being in the language of different tribes, in ways that reflected the US government’s concept of “ownership”.

Trade, war, and rights of access and utility were highly sophisticated and functional.

That the conceptual framework was different in Indian societies was my poorly made point.

Thanks for lending precision to this layman’s discussion. It is dead on.
#172766

On November 15th, 2007 at 3:22 pm, Prime Director said:

Bear1909,

Like I said, I’ve enjoyed your posts, and agreed with much of what you’ve said, including most of the treaty stuff. Upon reflection, I see now that I had to get down in the weeds to find a point of contention. The only part I was refuting was

It is correct that the concept of “owning” land parcels was not in the lexicon of respective tribes

which is inarguably not the case, as the article begins to point out, especially in California and the Northwest. Almost every tribe practiced at least some limited or temporary/seasonal form of land ownership or exclusive usufruactory right assignment. The “concept” was present somewhere in their lexicon, almost without exception.

I used the term “lexicon” for a specific reason- to address the position of “owning land” not being in the language of different tribes, in ways that reflected the US government’s concept of “ownership”.

If that’s your position, I’m in almost total agreement. I think we’re on the same page. Sorry for not being more charitable in my reading. I get what you’re saying.

Incidentally, I didn’t question the veracity of the part that read

But that is not the basis for allegations of theft.

although this, too, may not entirely the case, as not every tribe that was stolen from entered into treaty. My only point was that yes, Indians did indeed believe in private property and specifically land ownership. Saying they didn’t only makes it easier to sweep the theft of their land under the rug. Again, sorry about picking the nits. I’m a maniac when it comes to this point. I’ll chase a guy down in the street if I hear him say it in passing.

Thanks for lending precision to this layman’s discussion.

Thanks for listening, Bear.

BTW, I feel bad that my posts are contributing to an atmosphere that resembles an ethnic studies basket weave-a-thon gripe-fest, which I’m sure is the last thing most people who come to this site want to hear. I’d just like to say that I believe that the AIM crowd aside, most Indians have a strong respect for tradition and a capacity for reverence that makes them very receptive to conservatism. Thanks MM for being a good host.

Aho