Is there any truth to either of these statements regarding the Pilgrims?
First off, it is important to realize the timing of both these articles was politically motivated. The first article was most likely fueled by the Black Lives Matter movement, founded after Trayvon Martin was killed by police in February of that same year. Since that time, the media has found it necessary to vilify any players in "white history" in order to support the BLM narrative. The second article was certainly in response to anti-refugee sentiments that had arisen in Congress, among many Conservatives, and had been a topic of wide debate during the presidential election (we know for certain because Bobic actually states in his article that he is responding to these sentiments).
The political motivation of both of these articles does not immediately disqualify them as accurate assessments of Pilgrim history, but it is something to keep in mind as we examine the arguments made.
Let's begin our analysis with the second article.
"This Thanksgiving, Remember America's Pilgrims Were Refugees, Too" by Igor Bobic
Claim: The Pilgrims were refugees
Counter: Although I can see the point Igor Bobic is trying to make, his assessment, although not entirely inaccurate, is incomplete.
England was a Roman Catholic nation until 1534, when King Henry VIII declared himself head of a new national church called the Church of England, or Anglican Church. There were many non-conformist groups that opposed the doctrines of the Church of England. The Puritans wanted to purify the church via reform from within. The Separatists believed the Church was beyond reform and wanted to form new churches outside the Church of England.
The group which we call "Pilgrims" were Separatists (I will use these terms interchangeably throughout). Two groups of Separatists--one in Scrooby, Notts County led by pastor Richard Clyfton; and one in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, 13 miles to the West, led by pastor John Smyth (not to be confused with John Smith of Jamestown)--had been meeting for some years and in 1604 were brought together in one body by former (he had recently been excommunicated from the Anglican church) pastor John Robinson.
The Scrooby Manor House, part of the Scrooby Palace belonging to the Archbishop of York and, was occupied by William Brewster, the Archbishop's bailiff. Brewster was not exceptionally loyal to his master the Archbishop; in fact, he was a Separatist and part of the Scrooby congregation. From 1604 the combined congregation began meeting regularly in Scrooby Manor.
Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services unless the church had signed the allegiance to the Church of England, with a fine of one shilling (£0.05; about £17 today) for each missed Sunday and holy day.
Three founders of the Separatist movement--Robert Browne, Clyfton's mentor, and John Greenwood, both graduates of Corpus Christi college; and their disciple Henry Barrowe--had been arrested for conducting unofficial services in 1586. Greenwood and Barrowe were hanged in 1593. These were not the only non-conformist leaders imprisoned and executed since the passing of Act of Uniformity, but these events cut deeply into the hearts of the Scrooby and Gainsborough congregations, as they held close ties to these individuals.
Many members of the non-conformist movement, Puritans and Separatists alike, had hoped that a reconciliation would be possible when King James I came to power in 1603. However, when James appointed Tobias Matthew as the new Archbishop of York in 1606, things only got worse. Ironically, the Pilgrims continued to meet in the Archbishops' Scrooby manor without his knowledge.
In early 1607 Clyfton was declared a non-conformist, excommunicated from the Anglican church, and stripped of his pastoral titles. Brewster was fined £20 (about £3.96 thousand today) for his non-compliance with the church and was forced to resign as the Archbishop's bailiff. Fearful that things would only get worse, the congregation decided to flee to Holland, as Brewster, a diplomatic assistant to the Netherlands for the Crown, had contacts there.
One group led by John Smyth departed for Amsterdam in late 1607 and another, led by John Robinson, followed in early 1608. They remained in Amsterdam for about a year before moving to the town of Leiden.
After residing in Leiden for 10 years, the Scrooby Separatists decided to leave for the New World. Their main reason for leaving Holland was not due to religious persecution, but rather due to concern for the spirituality of their children. They found the Dutch morals much too libertine, and as William Bradford wrote in his journal, the children of the group were "drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses"[15]. Although other struggles--such as difficulty with the language and being unable to find good employment--also contributed to their decision to leave, the biggest factor was that they wanted to remove their children from the negative influences that surrounded them.
So we see that the Pilgrims were not refugees in the strictest sense. Upon leaving England in 1607 for Amsterdam they could arguably be considered refugees, but their choice to leave Holland was not one of duress, but rather of calculated choice. This choice was for the betterment of their children's future.
In addition, seeing as "they left the Netherlands with the cooperation and blessing of the London Company, an enterprise operating under a royal charter from King James I, for territory claimed by England. When they arrived in Massachusetts Bay, they established commercial and cultural ties with England. They considered themselves to be Englishmen until the late 18th century and all that messiness. When the Cromwell-led English Civil War broke out, many men from Massachusetts returned to England and joined the Parliamentary Army" [13], they can hardly be seen as refugees at the point in time that they set sail for the Americas.
"Happy National Genocide (Thanksgiving) Day!" by Nicole Breedlove
Claim: My great, great, great, great grandfather was a part of a band of Black Indians in Florida, hence my unique and Native American-sounding last name. It seems I come from a long line of warriors and activists. I am a revolutionary not by choice but by lineage.
Counter:
Admittedly, this is irrelevant and equates to an ad hominem attack, but I can't help to point out that the name "Breedlove" is neither "unique" nor "Native-American sounding". It is a British name. The first reference to the surname Breedlove was in the year 1140 ( more than 350 years before the discovery of the New World) in Edinburgshire, where the family held a county seat and extensive lands and estates.[2] There are hundreds of references to this name throughout Britain for the next 350 years, up to the colonization of the Americas. In addition, if Breedlove is a Native name, then why are there 685 immigration records readily available for public access, showing that the name did not originate on the American continent? It's also interesting to note that although she claims her last name to be "unique" there are 50K birth, marriage, and death records, as well as 23K census and voter records also available. I'm genuinely curious if anyone who read that statement actually believed that malarkey about the origin of her last name.
While I'm engaging in ad hominem attacks...did nobody proofread this before it was published online? There are several grammatical errors. The worst of which is this sentence: "I will ALWAYS honor those who lost their lives unjustifiable." I know that I continually push to judge an argument on its merits, rather than discrediting it based on the source, but she makes it extremely difficult to take her seriously, and we're only two paragraphs into the article.
In addition, this is identity politics: By implication, she is saying "I'm Native, therefore I can speak for Natives", and thus, by default "If you're not Native, your two cents regarding this event don't matter". As if Floridian tribes know jack about New England tribes. That is just an absolutely asinine assertion.
Claim:
When I did finally learn, there was no stopping me. Whenever someone asked what I was doing for Thanksgiving I proudly stated that I no longer celebrate it. Thanksgiving day should be known as National Land Theft and American Genocide Day.
Counter:
First off, I guarantee that 95% of people concerned about this "genocide" can't even name the tribe involved. This is a classic example of Cecil-Lion syndrome. Yes, Breedlove is able to name the tribe, but the majority of Social Justice Warriors cannot.
Claim:
I learned that in 1637 the body of a white man was discovered dead in a boat. Armed settlers — which we tell our children were God fearing, gentle, sharing, kind Pilgrims — invaded a Pequot village. They also set the village, which included many children, on fire. Those who were lucky enough to escape the fire were systematically sought, hunted down and killed. While many, including historians, still debate what exactly happened this day, also known as the Pequot Massacre, it directly led to the creation of “Thanksgiving Day.” This is what the governor of Bay Colony had to say days after the massacre, “A day of thanksgiving. Thanking God that they had eliminated over 700 men, women and children.”
Counter: I learned that in 1637 the body of a white man was discovered dead in a boat. Armed settlers — which we tell our children were God fearing, gentle, sharing, kind Pilgrims — invaded a Pequot village. They also set the village, which included many children, on fire. Those who were lucky enough to escape the fire were systematically sought, hunted down and killed. While many, including historians, still debate what exactly happened this day, also known as the Pequot Massacre, it directly led to the creation of “Thanksgiving Day.” This is what the governor of Bay Colony had to say days after the massacre, “A day of thanksgiving. Thanking God that they had eliminated over 700 men, women and children.”
I assume Breedlove is referring to the Mystic Massacre of 1637, but seeing as she is pitifully unprofessional in her reference to it (failing completely to correctly name the event) I cannot be entirely sure.
Or perhaps she left out the correct name of the event on purpose. Because that would make it too easy for people to Google the event and find out that she is completely wrong.
The first inconsistency is obvious. The massacre at Mystic River Village was in 1637. The first Thanksgiving was in 1621. Unless he was psychic, I'm not sure how the governor of Plymouth could declare a day of thanksgiving celebrating an event that wouldn't happen for another 16 years.
In addition, the Mystic Massacre was perpetrated by the Puritans of Boston not the Separatists of Plymouth during the Pequot War. The Boston Puritans, who had arrived in 1630, had no connection, and very little communication with, the Plymouth Separatists. In fact, while the Bostonians fought the Pequot tribe from 1636 to 1638, the Plymouthians maintained peace with the neighboring Wampanoag tribe.
Breedlove also fails to mention that the Pequots started the war. The Pequot and Mohegans, once a single tribe, had split into separate groups before the arrival of Europeans. After the arrival of Europeans, the Pequots formed an alliance with the Western Niantics, and began to expand their territory, encroaching on the lands of the River Tribes and Mohegans to the west, the Narragansett to the east, and the Lenape and Montaukett to the south (not pictured on map), and the Eastern Niantics and Wampanoag. Naturally, these tribes fought back against this expansion.
In 1633 the Pequots attacked and killed members of another tribe as they attempted to trade with the English in the area of Hartford. Then, in 1634, Niantics killed John Stone, a ship captain, and 7 of his crew on the Connecticut River.
The Bostonians didn't enter the conflict until July 20, 1636, a respected trader named John Oldham was attacked on a trading voyage to Block Island. He and several of his crew were killed and his ship looted by Narragansett-allied Indians who sought to discourage English settlers from trading with their Pequot rivals. Far from "the body of a white man was discovered dead in a boat", 9 white men had been killed, and it was quite clear who the perpetrators were.
After a retaliatory attack on two Niantic villages on Block Island (where only one Native was killed), and an attack on a Pequot village (after the Natives fled in all three instances, they stole all the crops and burned all three villages to the ground), the Bostonians allied with the tribes opposing the Pequots, and the war began.
The Mystic Massacre occurred on May 26, 1637, when English forces led by Captains John Mason and John Underhill, along with their Indian allies from the Mohegan and Narragansett tribes, surrounded one of two main fortified Pequot villages at Mistick. 20 soldiers breached the palisade's gate and were quickly overwhelmed, to the point that they used fire to create chaos and facilitate their escape from within. The ensuing conflagration trapped the majority of the Pequots and caused their death; those who managed to escape were killed by the arrows or musket shots. Only a handful of Pequot survived. As the soldiers made the exhausted withdrawal march to their boats, they faced several attacks by frantic warriors from the other village of Weinshauks.
It is interesting to note that [1] the fire was not started with the intent of burning Pequot villagers alive, but rather as a distraction to facilitate the escape of trapped soldiers, and [2] there were more total Mohegan (70) and Narragansett (200) warriors involved in this event than English (110). Seeing as the majority of those involved were of the same ethnicity as those whom they were killing, this massacre, though of questionable morality, can hardly be classified as an "ethnic genocide".
In regards to the number of Pequots casualties, the number 700 was the total number of Pequots killed during the entire war, not during the Mystic Massacre; which was somewhere around 400. Although still a saddening number, which should bring sorrow upon hearing, 400 is not 700.
I'll give Ms. Breedlove this concession: yes, admittedly, the Plymouthians were involved in a war a few decades later, which started after John Sassamon, a Christian Indian, after warning the Separatists that Metacomet (known to the Separatists as King Philip) preparing for war with the settlers, was found by Plymouthians under the ice of a lake with a broken neck.
But King Philip's War was in 1675. Seeing as the average life expectancy in the 1600s was below 40 years old, and the majority of Mayflower passengers were in their 30's, it is safe to assume that all the original Separatist immigrants were dead at the time of King Philip's War, 55 years after the Mayflower's landing. Reviewing of the death records of the settlers confirms this. Therefore, although it cannot be said that the Pilgrims themselves were genocidal, it may be said that their grandchildren were. However, if King's Philip's War is to be considered a genocide, every mutual armed conflict in history must also be considered such.
Claim:
William B. Newell, a Penobscot Indian and former chairman of the Anthropology Department at the University of Connecticut stated, “Gathered in this place of meeting, they were attacked by mercenaries and English and Dutch. The Indians were ordered from the building and as they came forth were shot down, The rest were burned alive in the building. The very next day the governor declared a Thanksgiving Day. For the next 100 years, every Thanksgiving Day ordained by a Governor was in honor of the bloody victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.”
Counter:
First off, the Penobscot tribe in Maine, 210 miles north of Boston, had nothing to do with the events of May 26, 1637, and most likely had no knowledge of them for decades after. Using Mr. Newell's tribal membership as a credential, in this case, is completely idiotic. The only credential that should be listed is that of his position as chairman.
There is not a single bit of historical evidence in regards to a Thanksgiving celebration being had in relation to this massacre. Of the primary sources relating the Mystic Massacre, not one mention this. Yes, Mason heartlessly attributed the burning of the Pequots to an act of God, who "laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to scorn making [the Pequot fort] as a fiery Oven. ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling [Mystic] with dead Bodies"[7], and Underhill cold-heartedly bragged about the event in his book; but there was no celebration or feast held in connection with this event.
In addition, I have my doubts as to whether William B. Newell actually exists, but rather, was conjured up to serve an agenda. Evidence of him only exists in 7 places:
- "Research" compiled in 1990 and posted on thepeoplespath.net.
- A September 2005 article, with the exact same quotation used in the 1990's "research".
- An NBC interview on November 23, 2005, between Tucker Carlson and Vernon Bellecourt, in which Bellecourt uses the exact same quotation.
- An American Indian Movement page, posted the same day, with the exact same quote.
- An American Indian Netroots page, posted November 22, 2009, with the exact same quote.
- A Ne-Do-Ba page, claiming Mr. Newell is the son of the prominent medicine man "Rolling Thunder".
- The article by Nicole Breedlove, again, with the exact same quote.
6 of these 7 sources contain the exact same quote, but fail to cite the book, interview, article or documentary where Mr. Newell originally said this. Surely, if this man is so influential, he has said more than a single paragraph worth quoting in the past 27 years! And surely, if Mr. Newell was a chairman of the Uconn Anthropology department, he would have published multiple times, as this is a requirement of university professors. Yet, a search for his name in all prominent databases of scholarly articles returns nothing.
To confirm my assumptions, I sent an email to the Uconn Department of Anthropology asking after Mr. Newell, and whether he has ever been part of the faculty there. I am awaiting their reply and will update this portion as soon as it arrives.
Claim:
When I finally found out the origins of Thanksgiving it made me nauseous. Never again will I celebrate a holiday I know nothing about until I investigate its origins. I am very thankful, pun intended, that I learned about the origins of this holiday. It is a reminder that history can be rewritten and if told enough times eventually becomes the truth!
Counter:
Oh! How you are right Nicole! You have rewritten history in your article, in hopes that it will be told enough times it will become the truth!
This statement is so ironic, coming from you of all people! Your article, which is so rich in citations and primary sources (not), it must be truthful and accurate, especially because your great-great-grandfather was a Native!
In Conclusion
Neither political assertion from the Huffington Post is entirely accurate. Both are full of gross oversimplifications, and utter falsehoods. I am sick and tired of people rewriting history to serve their agendas, and to demonize white people and the United States. It is our duty to correct these falsehoods, wherever we see them.
Sources:
(It is common for Huffington Post to delete or change things when people prove them wrong, so just to make sure, I archived the pages containing their articles).
1. Ancestry.com, "Breedlove Family History".
2. Sir Bernard Burke (1921), "Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage and Baronetage, The Privy Council, Knightage and Companionage". London: Burke Publishing.
3. Colin G. Calloway (2012), "First People: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History". NYC: Bedford/St. Martin's.
4. Cornelius Brown (1891). A History of Nottinghamshire. London: Elliot Stock
5. Daniel Neal (1732). "The history of the Puritans, or, Protestant non-conformists.."
6. Igor Bobic (2015), "This Thanksgiving, Remember America's Pilgrims Were Refugees, Too", Huffington Post. Archived at: http://archive.is/VZCDE
7. John Mason (1736), "A Brief History of the Pequot War: Especially of the Memorable taking of their Fort at Mistick in Connecticut in 1637/Written by Major John Mason, a principal actor therein, as then chief captain and commander of Connecticut forces; With an introduction and some explanatory notes by the Reverend Mr. Thomas Prince".
8. John Underhill (1638), "Newes from America; or, A New and Experimentall Discoverie of New England: Containing, a True Relation of their War-like Proceedings these two yeares last past, with a figure of the Indian fort, or Palizado. Also a discovery of these places, that as yet have very few or no inhabitants which would yeeld speciall accommodation to such as will plant there ... By Captaine Iohn Underhill, a commander in the warres there".
9. Max Roser (2017), ‘Life Expectancy’. Published online at OurWorldInData.org.
10. Nicole Breedlove (2013), "Happy National Genocide (Thanksgiving) Day!", Huffington Post. Archived at: http://archive.is/DGGMf
11. Patricia Scott Deetz & James F. Deetz (2000), "Passengers on the Mayflower: Ages & Occupations, Origins & Connections".
12. Pete Kasperowicz (2015), "Anti-refugee bills pour out of Congress", Washington Examiner.
13. Streiff, "No, Huffington Post, The Pilgrims Were Not Refugees", Red State.
14. Susan E. Roser (1992), "Mayflower Births and Deaths: From the Files of George Ernest Bowman at the Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants". Volumes 1 & 2. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc.
15. William Bradford (1651), "Of Plimoth Plantation".
No comments:
Post a Comment