Native American table manners, dining etiquette? during First Thanksgiving?

[green papaya]

I wonder how they shared the first Thanksgiving with the Native Americans? was there any type of dining etiquette back then? did they have the natives line up in an orderly manner and serve them individually? or did they just leave food on a table and tell them to help themselves kind of like a big picnic? did the elders get fed first?

 

[Undertow]

I'm not clear on the historicity of this supposed event. Anyone have some scholarly background? From what I've read, there was never any particularly official event in which settlers and Native Americans sat down and shared a meal, so much as there were instances where the two parties attempted to befriend one another.

I think in the end, the settlers would have seen the Native Americans as "savages" regardless of any actual etiquette observed. History shows us that Americans (Europeans too!) have previously been guilty of the whole "Oh those poor, dumb savages" mindset.

 

[randooch]

I suspect that it was the natives who were kind enough to share provisions and who extended kindnesses in general, much to their damage.

 

[Tomasso]

Quit trying to stir things up! [bad]

Thanksgiving happened just like this:

 

[LizzieMaine]

There's historical agreement that there was an actual harvest festival held at Plimoth Plantation in 1621, organized jointly by the settlers and members of the Wampanoag tribe who had helped them during the first year of the settlement. The settlers and Wampanoags had worked together quite closely during that time, and there's no evidence that there was any "white man's burden" sort of approach in the way the settlers dealt with the natives. They needed help if they were to survive, they knew they needed help, and they were grateful that they were helped. The Pilgrims were not the same people as the Puritans -- who were the ones who warred against the Wampanoags in the 1670s.

The festival went on for three days, and more Indians attended than there were settlers, which would suggest that ethnic tensions were not especially high.

 

[Undertow]

Quit trying to stir things up! [bad]

Thanksgiving happened just like this:

Oh my god! Is that Shakespeare? (the guy on the right with the blue shirt?) I smell conspiracy theory (followed by book deal by Dan Brown)!

 

[Kid Mac]

No, it's Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

 

["Skeet" McD]

Plimoth Plantation, the remarkable first-person recreation of the Pilgrim's village in 1627 is a must-see for anyone interested in history coming to New-England—it may be FAR from the period that most folks here are interested in...but I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

They are also the preeminent source of information on Thanksgiving traditions—there's a book out, in point of fact:

<http://www.amazon.com/Giving-Thanks-Thanksgiving-Recipes-Pilgrims/dp/1400080576>

Here's what they have up on-line:

<http://www.plimoth.org/discover/thanksgiving/>

Hope that helps,
"Skeet"

 

[Tomasso]

Fixed

Hope that helps

Hope this helps.


http://www.amazon.com/Giving-Thanks-Thanksgiving-Recipes-Pilgrims/dp/1400080576

http://www.plimoth.org/discover/thanksgiving/

 

[dhermann1]

Hmmm . . . so they didn't have table manners at all, because they didn't have tables? Makes sense.
Lizzie, your comment about Pilgrims vs. Puritans makes my eyebrow go up. "Puritan" was a generic term for a great variety of dissenters during the 17th century. Some of the Puritans went to the New World. But they were still Puritans, weren't they? Anyhow, that's my understanding.
If you want to see a very accurate depiction of Native American culture during the 17th century, check out a film called "Black Robe" (1991). Heartwrenching.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Nope. The Puritans and the Separatists -- the Pilgrims by another name -- were two entirely different sects of dissidents who broke from the Church of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Separatists simply wanted to be left alone to worship in their own way, and got along reasonably peacefully with those around them. The Puritans were much more militant and aggressive in their views -- for one thing they believed that the C. of E. needed to be reformed, and that simply separating from it wasn't enough -- and tended to dominate or attack those who didn't accept their teachings.

These are the sort of important differences that get lost in the oversimplified "all white people were the same" way in which Colonial-era history is taught nowadays, but they were very real and signficant distinctions in their time. This essay gives a good, basic examination of what those distinctions were.

 

[Foofoogal]

Timely. Just received my Antique Trader magazine today (love this magazine)
In it there was a story about this very discussion. It was about Thanksgiving postcards and how true to life they were.
A Barbara Andrews wrote a nice write up.
Small group landed on Plymouth Rock in Dec. 1620. They were greeted by Samoset, an Abnaki who knew some English. 2 more Indians involved also were Squanto and Massasoit.
She stated like Lizzie the Pilgrims and Puritans were even hostile towards each other in History and 2 different groups entirely.
The pilgrims were 102 of which half died including 10 of the 17 male households.
Thanks to the Indians and a bountiful Harvest in 1621 they gave thanks to God for their deliverance. General Washington in 1789 as a general holiday. Much more information. Nice read.

 

[dhermann1]

That's very interesting, Lizzie. I read several books a few years ago about the British Civil Wars of the 1640's. We Americans know NOTHING about them, even that they took place at all. But on a per capita basis, based on population, they were about 4 times as bloody as our own Civil War. Anyway, one thing I learned was that the religious issues and splinter groups were EXTREMELY complicated and confusing. Imagine a war in which 200,000 people died (that's not including anywhere between 200,000 and 600,000 in Ireland), all started because of a controversy involving the Book of Common Prayer!

 

["Skeet" McD]

Dear DH, I suppose you're right that [most] Americans today know nothing about the English Civil War(s); but it was not that way always. In point of fact, our Civil War (which we tend today to compare/equate with the American Revolution) was seen in its own day in the MUCH more accurate template of a replay of the ECW. It's all over, when you begin to look for it; the "Cavaliers" of the Confederacy; the "Roundhead Regiments" and "Ironsides" from Pennsylvania and New-York—it was Southern [Episcopal] hereditary Aristocrats against Northern [Dissenting] democratic levellers, all over again as far as they were concerned.

And yes: Black Robe is a fantastic film that manages to do accurate justice to all sides, native and white.

"Skeet"

 

[Drappa]

There have been a few Native commentators who were more than critical about "Black Robe", most notably actor Gary Farmer, who called it one-sided, because "Nobody explains the Iroquois Confederacy's five centuries of peace between the six nations. The Hurons saw the devastation from the alcohol brought by the newcomers as a decay that had to be rooted out. The Iroquois told the Hurons that everyone not affected should leave, and they would go in and clean the area out."
Activist Ward Churchill wrote a critical essay contained in "From a Native Son". According to Churchill the reality portrayed in the movie was inaccurate and villified most Native groups apart from the Christianised Hurons.
So far I have yet to watch a movie on Native Americans that isn't guilty of either romanticism, silly portrayals of noble warriors or submissive savages or any of the other misrepresentations filmmakers are so keen on for their classic good-bad dichotomies.

 

[dhermann1]

I have to admit I've only seen half of Black Robe. Had to give the DVD back to my friend. But what I saw really impressed me. I agree with the Round Head vs. Cvaalier interpretation of our Civil War, tho, of course, there's a WHOLE LOT more to it that that.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The ideological descendents of the Separatists are still very much with us -- as New England Congregationalists, still a basically liberal denomination. The Puritans, meanwhile, were largely the ancestors of New England Presbyterians, who tend toward a more traditional Calvinistic structure.

People today are very uncomfortable studying or even discussing the role that religious denominational difference had in shaping Colonial America. When I was in grammar school we studied these issues, in a way comprehensible to children, but we did study and discuss them. But by the time I was in high school the newer textbooks glossed over any sort of specific discussion of religious issues, I suppose to protect the sensitivities of people who might be offended by the discussion of such a topic.

But the fact remains that you cannot understand what happened in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, both in Europe and in the New World, without examining the role of denominationalism. It was *the* catalyst, more than any other, that shaped the colonies, how they grew, how they interacted with the natives, and how they interacted with each other. To oversimplify it into "they were looking for religious freedom but they were hypocrites who denied that freedom to others and went around oppressing the natives" gives little more than a comic-book view of history, not any kind of a realistic understanding. Which doesn't help anyone in the long run.

 

["Skeet" McD]

Dear DH: Go rent the film; you need to see the second half of Black Robe. If you liked the first, you'll be glad you saw it to the end. And yes, of course there's more to the ACW than Cavaliers vs. Roundheads, round two—all I said was that this was the primary reference contemporary Americans used when imagining and describing their war—we tend to think "American Revolution, round two" when doing the same thing. For what it's worth...I think the ECW/ACW template fits better.

Dear Drappa: well, no film is ever going to be pleasing to everybody, and the more politicised the topic, the less likely that outcome. Having said that: while its perfectly possible to say "this should have been mentioned" a film, like every work of art, needs to be primarily concerned with the emotional reality based on the events depicted, IMHO: comprehensive history is for the history books. As far as Ward Churchill goes: the irony of the title "From a Native Son" is pretty rich, seeing as he was a second—and far more pernicious—Grey Owl. I beg to differ, even though I'm no more a native son than he is: I thought the "savagery" of the Hurons was shown to be part and parcel of their belief system, made sense within it, and not outside of it....pretty much the way the actions and opinions of the French Christians were shown. Although it's only one man's opinion, I found the film one of the very small number of historical efforts which really did have a very even hand, showing the actions and the motivations of the actors, and their results, with no favoritism.

"Skeet"

 

[Aristaeus]

There have been a few Native commentators who were more than critical about "Black Robe", most notably actor Gary Farmer, who called it one-sided, because "Nobody explains the Iroquois Confederacy's five centuries of peace between the six nations. The Hurons saw the devastation from the alcohol brought by the newcomers as a decay that had to be rooted out. The Iroquois told the Hurons that everyone not affected should leave, and they would go in and clean the area out."
Activist Ward Churchill wrote a critical essay contained in "From a Native Son". According to Churchill the reality portrayed in the movie was inaccurate and villified most Native groups apart from the Christianised Hurons.
So far I have yet to watch a movie on Native Americans that isn't guilty of either romanticism, silly portrayals of noble warriors or submissive savages or any of the other misrepresentations filmmakers are so keen on for their classic good-bad dichotomies.

Ward Churchill is not a good source on anything.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/24/churchill-loses-appeal-of-university-firing/

 

[Drappa]

^I didn't know that about him, interesting read. However, I am not convinced that his personal or academic failings mean that there is absolutely no validity to his arguments in regards to the film, although he may be a poor choice for representing them. Neither do I think that his background disqualifies him from commenting on the issue.
In terms of portraying emotional reality on film, I think that this is precisely the problem - ethnic tensions and preconceived notions about other religions and cultures are based so much on emotion that it is quite easy to present people and groups of people in a certain light. Often these are subtle enough that the viewer won't even realise why they feel a certain way about characters. The problem lies in assigning savagery to one group of characters and making it part of their belief system, not whether this belief system has been explained well.