There was no plan. There was no procedure implemented over centuries. There was no coordination among the various European settlers. We don’t even know for sure how many died.

Most died from diseases. These diseases were not deliberately introduced, except in very rare cases. Europeans died from the same diseases centuries before. The spread of disease was not understood. Some American diseases went the other way and affected Europe.

A lot more than 2/3 of the original European settlers died, many at the hands of Native Americans. War went both ways, and tribes fought each other. Cortez would not have gotten anywhere without Tlascalan allies.

The Europeans did NOT systematically eliminate 2/3 of the Native American population. You have absolutely NO basis for saying this. It is a fantasy, like Santa Claus.

In the case of Paraguay, the Europeans deliberately interbred with the natives. You present centuries of history as a simple and grossly exaggerated caricature that has nothing to do with Thanksgiving, or real history.

I do tire of making the same points year after year. You have been indoctrinated, wake up and read some real history.

The Europeans did NOT systematically eliminate 2/3 of their population.

No, they systematically eliminated 2/3 of the Native American population…

Or do you not remember who was in charge of various parts of the continent back then?

WOW! I am so surprised.

And then went to war with us?

And then sat down and had a nice dinner with us?

Nice anachronism. The war was more than 50 years after the first Thanksgiving. Check your facts. There were many European settlers, many Indian groups. The first Thanksgiving was a specific event, not an epoch.

The Europeans did NOT systematically eliminate 2/3 of their population. You are spreading a lie, a lie that has absolutely nothing to do with the Thanksgiving story.

The fact is that the pilgrims would not have survived without help, even with their technology. It is a story of friendship freely given. This particular friendship lasted for a generation. You want to make it into a story of oppression. Sorry, your square peg does not fit into this round hole.

So they really did not have sit down with a turkey. Admit it and go on.

Some legends are easily modified, but to all of a sudden label them as TOTALLY in acceptable? A bit far, I think. ( I already nobody cares what I think, could care less).

I will add only that is is an apparent fact that the indigenous peoples of America did help out the newcomers, and the newcomers appreciated such help and that probably there were many occasions both got together and broke bread.

They also apparently have a falling out, and such led to a whole bunch of dead folks.

I figure much of that was caused by a total misunderstanding of cultural differences and one side not having tolerance of the other. (hmmmm, that seems to continues to be in vogue today).

Back to the thread…

““It’s demeaning,” Michelle Raheja, the mother of a kindergartner at Condit Elementary School, wrote to her daughter’s teacher. “I’m sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation’s history.””

Or is it a thread into the history of this country and how we arrived at where we are today? I think so. Can we modify such to represent the reality of the past, for sure, but to just call it racist and throw is out is out of the question.

When your looking for flip flop nuances it’s easy to find.

Use that same scrutiny for all politicians…. please.

They weren’t ‘European’ pilgrims, they were English to a man and woman.

They didn’t saild from the UK — that Act of Union which unified England and Scotland — thus creating the UK — was 80 years in the future.

BTW, I am of Yankee stock, but let’s not forget the the first permanent English colony was at Jamestown. Thanksgiving was made a national holiday by Abraham Lincoln. You have to suspect the focus on Plymouth was part of the war propaganda against the South.

I don’t know, Oiram, my understanding of Obama’s position is that, in his typical fashion, it depends on the audience to whom he is speaking. In front of more centrist White Democrats, Dear Leader-elect downplays reparations as not practical, though he stops short of saying it would be outright bad policy. However, when talking to a mostly African-American audience — especially one in which Black radicals are present in significant numbers — he tends towards a “nuanced” version in which he stops short of endorsing reparations, but instead speaks of the need of “investing” in the inner cities with the clear subtext that (White) Americans should do so out of a sense of obligation rather than it being necessarily good social policy.

Next up, on thanksgiving weekend we learn that white people came from somewhere else too.