something as simple and classic as stuffing a bird!

Thanksgiving started after an autumn harvest when Indians on the east coast of the North American continent joined together with settlers to celebrate their bounty. Originally the settlers had invited two Indians and their families to join them for a harvest meal. When the Indians showed up with 90 of their brethren(family meant everyone to Indians) it became apparent that the settlers would not have enough food for all. The Indians recognized the deficit and went back to their dwelling and loaded up on deer, fish, corn bread and other assorted food stuffs that would see the group through three days of eating.

And so, the Thanksgiving we celebrate started during a time when Indians(Wampanoag) and settlers(Puritans) recognized that they could interact and cooperate.

What a concept!

Unfortunately it is not quite accurate.

We inhabitants of this great land have difficulty with the truth, even today.

And so customized for your personal taste. i 'm laying out a menu prepared by historians anxious to have parts of the myth exploded

Here's the menu:

The settlers founded their town on the site of the Indians summer village that they had abandoned when small pox decimated their tribe. That first winter was tough and without two Indians help they may never have survived for Squanto and his friend taught the Puritans what to eat, what to hunt, and what to avoid. They taught them how to build shelter and how to survive the harsh winter.

The settler's thought the Indians heathens for they didn't believe in the God of the Puritans. They didn't live the way the Puritans thought "right".

I'll bet you didn't know that the Puritans had left Europe believing that Armageddon was approaching. They believed ,as it said in Revelation, that they were the seeds of a new "Holy Kingdom". They came by the boat load to inhabit and transform this land for "God".

According to the Fourth World Documentation Project the Pilgrims did whatever they could to hasten this, including removing Indians.

Here is a piece quoted directly from the Project.

The Pilgrims were not just innocent refugees from religious persecution. They were victims of bigotry in England, but some of them were themselves religious bigots by our modern standards. The Puritans and the Pilgrims saw themselves as the "Chosen Elect" mentioned in the book of Revelation. They strove to "purify" first themselves and then everyone else of everything they did not accept in their own interpretation of scripture. Later New England Puritans used any means, including deceptions, treachery, torture, war, and genocide to achieve that end.(4) They saw themselves as fighting a holy war against Satan, and everyone who disagreed with them was the enemy. This rigid fundamentalism was transmitted to America by the Plymouth colonists, and it sheds a very different light on the "Pilgrim" image we have of them. This is best illustrated in the written text of the Thanksgiving sermon delivered at Plymouth in 1623 by "Mather the Elder." In it, Mather the Elder gave special thanks to God for the devastating plague of smallpox which wiped out the majority of the Wampanoag Indians who had been their benefactors. He praised God for destroying "chiefly young men and children, the very seeds of increase, thus clearing the forests to make way for a better growth", i.e., the Pilgrims.(5) In as much as these Indians were the Pilgrim's benefactors, and Squanto, in particular, was the instrument of their salvation that first year, how are we to interpret this apparent callousness towards their misfortune? The Wampanoag Indians were not the "friendly savages" some of us were told about when we were in the primary grades. Nor were they invited out of the goodness of the Pilgrims' hearts to share the fruits of the Pilgrims' harvest in a demonstration of Christian charity and interracial brotherhood. The Wampanoag were members of a widespread confederacy of Algonkian-speaking peoples known as the League of the Delaware. For six hundred years they had been defending themselves from my other ancestors, the Iroquois, and for the last hundred years they had also had encounters with European fishermen and explorers but especially with European slavers, who had been raiding their coastal villages.(6) They knew something of the power of the white people, and they did not fully trust them. But their religion taught that they were to give charity to the helpless and hospitality to anyone who came to them with empty hands.(7) Also, Squanto, the Indian hero of the Thanksgiving story, had a very real love for a British explorer named John Weymouth, who had become a second father to him several years before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth. Clearly, Squanto saw these Pilgrims as Weymouth's people.(8) To the Pilgrims the Indians were heathens and, therefore, the natural instruments of the Devil. Squanto, as the only educated and baptized Christian among the Wampanoag, was seen as merely an instrument of God, set in the wilderness to provide for the survival of His chosen people, the Pilgrims. The Indians were comparatively powerful and, therefore, dangerous; and they were to be courted until the next ships arrived with more Pilgrim colonists and the balance of power shifted. The Wampanoag were actually invited to that Thanksgiving feast for the purpose of negotiating a treaty that would secure the lands of the Plymouth Plantation for the Pilgrims. It should also be noted that the INDIANS, possibly out of a sense of charity toward their hosts, ended up bringing the majority of the food for the feast.(9)
Today these uncomfortable truths are ignored as we celebrate a different Thanksgiving. This week people all over the country will have prepared their food lists, found the ingredients, filled their carts and rolled to the check out stand. All those savvy shopper items are stuffed in the backs of cars and transported to kitchens all over America.

Tomorrow all those endless decisions, all the beloved foods from long ago, will find their way to dining room tables everywhere for this is a time to "remember".

Even knowing the "truth" about Thanksgiving it is still my all time favorite holiday of the year. What i like to remember is that Thanksgiving requires no "gifts' just sharing.

So in the spirit of sharing, remember that the Wampanoag's religion taught that they were to give charity to the helpless and hospitality to anyone who came to them with empty hands.

Have a lovely Thanksgiving.

consent

A while back i did a piece that discussed the use of consent instead of consensus. i have long had problems with the idea behind majority rules and the anger of the minority which is never really addressed after an election. The loser is made to feel demoralized while the winner goes around thumping their chests.

i'm revisiting this idea of consent because the data at Real Clear Politics shows McCain got 46% of the popular vote and Obama got 53%. This means 66million882thousand230 people voted for Obama and 58million343thousand671 voted for McCain.

That means we now have 58million343thousand671 very unhappy Americans.

There were aspects of both platforms wanting change that American citizens didn't consent to. The fault for that lies in the way our leaders are elected. At no time was there a national conversation about what each of us objected to in these new leaders. All we did was discuss how one would be a better leader than the other. We used personality defects, guilt by association, adherence to socialism or capitalism, warrior versus peacemaker, fear, color of skin and a host of other aspects that had nothing to do with actually leading this country. We watched a sales job in action on both sides of the campaign.

i wonder, did any of us sit down and make lists of our objections or our agreement, McCain in one column and Obama in the other? Did we independently examine what they intended to accomplish in the future and why we might object to it. Or did we just adhere to each parties conservative or liberal ideology, read the blogs and e-mails and cancel them out based upon that? What exactly did we object to about each man and what exactly did we learn about each man? How would we do this differently in the future?

When we start talking about our objections we can prevent people from avoiding responsibility for the outcome by being silent. We need to discuss what everyone thinks about each man, what our objections are and how we can resolve them. There will always be more than one qualified individual to take on any job including President of the United States of America, but having more Americans consent to that man or woman taking on that job might make governing a whole lot easier.

If we spend time examining all our objections and concerns it would give us room to resolve them and make a better decision. If we take the objections seriously we could then try to focus on resolving them which in turn will build a better country. Some of the objections for both men were based upon fears that were never really examined by either side throughly. They were put out there to make the populace fearful in order to get you to vote a particular way...but maybe if we had examined them further we would learn that we really shouldn't be afraid. That we shouldn't let ideology trump reality.

58million343thousand671 Americans voted against Barack Obama being President of the United States.

This many unhappy people is not an environment where much can be accomplished but maybe this new administration can do something about it.

What are their objections and how can we work to resolve them or at least minimize the fear? i've sent a letter to Obama addressing this very real problem. Please write him with your objections and fears. Now is the time to let him know what you fear or what you might object to with his style of governing. He will be your President in January. He can be reached at:
http://www.change.gov/

peace alliance

In Afghanistan anti-war groups are convening to encourage dialog between the disparate groups to come together and find a way to end the war. There it is called a "peace jirga".

In September, in Saudi Arabia, a secret meeting by the government was held to bring together representatives of the Taliban to help find a way to a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan.

In Sudan there is a group led by Dolly Odwong, Mary Ret and Christine Leno, who are part of a twenty nation coalition that calls themselves "Woman Waging Peace". Dolly and others meet across borders to wage peace and work with women and children who are directly affected by the ongoing violent conflicts. They are trying to encourage reconciliation between the warring groups but they need international attention.

Another group with a presence on the internet is called "If Americans Knew". This is a place where Americans, if they so choose, can learn more about the Israel/Palestine issue. Their goal is to make available full and accurate information on this critical issue. They believe it is their duty – to bring a resolution to the ongoing occupation. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/

Media groups are trying to encourage peace through use of the Internet. They believe a strong internet presence will combat authoritarian regimes abilities to keep their populations ignorant of opposing views. They believe that as the world becomes more connected the ability to manipulate opinion in favor of war fades.

Conflict is inevitable, violence is not.

Understanding that you can have a conflict and resolve it without violence is the first cornerstone of a pursuit for peaceful outcomes. UNESCO states that "War begins in the minds of men." i say that war also ends in the minds of men and women when conflict and violence are separated. Too often wars are begun through the manipulation of public opinion. The voices speaking out for temperance are often disavowed through the use of hate and fear. If you can convince a population to hate you can also convince it to love.

As i said conflict is inevitable, violence is not.

There are all sorts of groups world wide using different methods to create peaceful outcomes. The short list above reflects groups working to solve problems in their countries. Here in the United States we also have groups working for Peace across all sectors of our society, we even have the United States Institute for Peace, an independent, non-partisan national institution which was created by Congress and can advise but has no place in cabinet meetings. Their production of the Iraq Study Group proposal and its failure to be considered by our President demonstrates its lack of teeth.

Unfortunately, governments worldwide do not have Peace Departments that function as a part of government. After thousands of years of conflict that results in violence isn't it time we set a new example. Isn't it time we demonstrate to the world that we can also focus on Peace as an integral part of who we are as a nation. What would the outcome have been had we had a Secretary of Peace involved in daily discussions with the President when he was contemplating invading Iraq?

There is legislation to create a Department of Peace in the United States government. The Secretary of this department will advise the President on peace building needs, strategies, and tactics for use domestically and internationally. A Peace Academy will be created which will be a sister academy to the Army, Navy and Air Force Academies.

The idea for a Department of Peace began with the creation of our nation. In 1792 Benjamin Banneker, noted African American scientist, surveyor, and editor and Benjamin Rush, doctor, educator and signer of the Declaration of Independence suggested the blue print for an Office of Peace. Unfortunately we are still trying, over 200 years later, to implement this wise idea.

For a more detailed discussion of this legislation i encourage you to investigate and give your full support to the Peace Alliance. You can find more information at their website http://www.thepeacealliance.org/content/view/54/130/ or click the banner at the top of the page.