History of Thanksgiving : “What is Thanksgiving and why is it celebrated?”
25th November 2010 · 1 Comment
The truth is the United States of America’s Thanksgiving Holiday has been globalized. Every country, culture or people appreciate gratitude for good deeds. Here in America, most children are taught the ‘magic words’, “please and Thank You.” In every culture respect, courtesy and gratitude are appreciated and this is the same in Sierra Leone.
The Sierra Leone Daily Mail would like to take this opportunity to thank H.E. President Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma for his transformational leadership as president of Sierra Leone. President Koroma is truly a master of Deontology – he exhibits mastery of his duties and responsibilities in serving the Land That we Love Our Sierra Leone. Thank you President Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma! May God continue to guide, protect and bless you with wisdom and strength.
We also take the opportunity to thank Government Cabinet and Non-Cabinet Ministers, Civil Servants, Businessmen and Businesswomen, Foreign Investors, Non Government Organizations (NGO), Civil Society Organizations, Members of the International Community and all others who have made, and continue to make Sierra Leone a better place.
Last but not the least, we take this opportunity to thank members of the Opposition Parties, especially the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) and the members of the press for their constructive criticisms in their efforts to make our country the envy of other African countries. The opposition and the press would not serve our nation if they do not point out the short-comings of the government in good faith and constructively so.
For all your contributions, we say: Bravo! Thank You! And keep on doing the good job because Sierra Leone Daily Mail and the people of Sierra Leone appreciate all you do.The article below is curled from the Huffington Post authored by the award winning novelist and essayist, Richard Greener.
The True Story Of Thanksgiving
Richard Greener, Novelist and award-winning essayist
November 25, 2010 10:04 AM
The idea of the American Thanksgiving feast is a fairly recent fiction. The idyllic partnership of 17th Century European Pilgrims and New England Indians sharing a celebratory meal appears to be less than 120 years-old. And it was only after the First World War that a version of such a Puritan-Indian partnership took hold in elementary schools across the American landscape. We can thank the invention of textbooks and their mass purchase by public schools for embedding this “Thanksgiving” image in our modern minds. It was, of course, a complete invention, a cleverly created slice of cultural propaganda, just another in a long line of inspired nationalistic myths.
The first Thanksgiving Day did occur in the year 1637, but it was nothing like our Thanksgiving today. On that day the Massachusetts Colony Governor, John Winthrop, proclaimed such a “Thanksgiving” to celebrate the safe return of a band of heavily armed hunters, all colonial volunteers. They had just returned from their journey to what is now Mystic, Connecticut where they massacred 700 Pequot Indians. Seven hundred Indians – men, women and children – all murdered.
This day is still remembered today, 373 years later. No, it’s been long forgotten by white people, by European Christians. But it is still fresh in the mind of many Indians. A group calling themselves the United American Indians of New England meet each year at Plymouth Rock on Cole’s Hill for what they say is a Day of Mourning. They gather at the feet of a stature of Chief Massasoit of the Wampanoag to remember the long gone Pequot. They do not call it Thanksgiving. There is no football game afterward.
How then did our modern, festive Thanksgiving come to be? It began with the greatest of misunderstandings, a true clash of cultural values and fundamental principles. What are we thankful for if not – being here, living on this land, surviving and prospering? But in our thankfulness might we have overlooked something? Look what happened to the original residents who lived in the area of New York we have come to call Brooklyn. A group of them called Canarsees obligingly, perhaps even eagerly, accepted various pieces of pretty colored junk from the Dutchman Peter Minuet in 1626. These trinkets have long since been estimated to be worth no more than 60 Dutch guilders at the time – $24 dollars in modern American money. In exchange, the Canarsees “gave” Peter Minuet the island of Manhattan. What did they care? They were living in Brooklyn.
Of course, all things – especially commercial transactions – need to be viewed in perspective. The nearly two-dozen tribes of Native Americans living in the New York area in those days had a distinctly non-European concept of territorial rights. They were strangers to the idea of “real property.” It was common for one tribe to grant permission to another to hunt and fish nearby themselves on a regular basis. Fences, real and imagined, were not a part of their culture. Naturally, it was polite to ask before setting up operations too close to where others lived, but refusal in matters of this sort was considered rude. As a sign of gratitude, small trinkets were usually offered by the tribe seeking temporary admission and cheerfully accepted by those already there. It was clearly understood to be a sort of short-term rental arrangement. Sad to say, the unfortunate Canarsees apparently had no idea the Dutch meant to settle in. Worse yet for them, it must have been unthinkable that they would also be unwelcome in Manhattan after their deal. One thing we can be sure of. Their equivalent of today’s buyer’s remorse brought the Canarsees nothing but grief, humiliation and violence.
Many Indians lived on Long Island in those days. Another Dutchman, Adrian Block, was the first European to come upon them in 1619. Block was also eager to introduce European commercialism and the Christian concept of “real estate” to these unfortunate innocents. Without exception, these Indians too came out on the short end in their dealings with the Dutch.
The market savvy unleashed by the Europeans upon the Indians constituted the first land use policies in the New World. In the 17th Century it was not urban but rather rural renewal. The result was of course the same. People of color with no money to speak of got booted out and the neighborhood which was subsequently gentrified and overrun by white people.
Not far from Manhattan, one tribe of about 10,000 Indians lived peacefully in a lovely spot on a peninsula directly along the ocean. There they fished in the open sea and inland bay. They hunted across the pristine shoreline and they were quite happy until they met a man – another Dutchman – named Willem Kieft. He was the Governor of New Netherland in 1639. These poor bastards were called the Rechaweygh (pronounced Rockaway). Soon after meeting Governor Kieft, they became the very first of New York’s homeless.
The people of New Netherland had a lot in common with the people of Plymouth Colony. At least it appears so from the way both of these groups of displaced and dissatisfied Europeans interacted with the local Indians. The Pilgrims in Plymouth had a hard time for the first couple of years. While nature was no friend, their troubles were mostly their own doing. Poor planning was their downfall. These mostly city dwelling Europeans failed to include among them persons with the skills needed in settling the North American wilderness. Having reached the forests and fields of Massachusetts they turned out to be pathetic hunters and incompetent butchers. With game everywhere, they went hungry. First, they couldn’t catch and kill it. Then they couldn’t cut it up, prepare it, preserve it and create a storehouse for those days when fresh supplies would run low. To compensate for their shortage of essential protein they turned to their European ways and their Christian culture. They instituted a series of religious observances. They could not hunt or farm well, but they seemed skilled at praying.
They developed a taste for something both religious and useful. They called it a Day of Fasting. Without food it seemed like a good idea. From necessity, that single Day became multiple Days. As food supplies dwindled the Days of Fasting came in bunches. Each of these episodes was eventually and thankfully followed by a meal. Appropriately enough, the Puritans credited God for this good fortune. They referred to the fact they were allowed to eat again as a “Thanksgiving.” And they wrote it down. Thus, the first mention of the word – “Thanksgiving.” Let there be no mistake here. On that first Thanksgiving there was no turkey, no corn, no cranberries, no stuffing. And no dessert. Those fortunate Pilgrims were lucky to get a piece of fish and a potato. All things considered, it was a Thanksgiving feast.
Did the Pilgrims share their Thanksgiving meal with the local Indians, the Wampanoag and Pequot? No. That never happened. That is, until its inclusion in the “Thanksgiving Story” in 1890.
Let the Wampanoag be a lesson to us especially in these troubled economic times. These particular Indians, with a bent for colorful jewelry, had their tribal name altered slightly by the Dutch, who then used it as a reference for all Indian payments. Hence, wampum. Contrary to what we’ve been shown in our Western movies, this word – wampum – and its economic meaning never made it out of New England.
Unlike wampum, Thanksgiving Day has indeed spread across the continent. It would serve us well to remember that it wasn’t until the victorious colonial militia returned from their slaughter of the Pequot that the New Americans began their now time-honored and cherished Thanksgiving.
Enjoy your turkey.
Source Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/the-true-story-of-thanksg_b_788436.html
© 2010, Foday Morris Ceesay. All rights reserved. Discuss this article on the Salone Forum Salone Forum




Ladies and gentlemen, I would live you with a piece to read and think very seriously about our nations reputation, how the entire world would look at us. We entered the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) as such we have had our countrymen abused, whereby, we joined-in to make this more painful.
“Bilateral Mandatory Notification Treaties (as of 2004)
An essential function of government is to provide services to their citizens/nationals abroad. There are several specific consular tasks but an essential consular function is the provision of assistance to citizens who are detained by a foreign government. Protecting such citizens may include attempting to ensure that they receive a fair and speedy trial with benefit of competent counsel; visiting them in prison to ensure that they are receiving humane treatment; and facilitating communications with their families.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR
Article 36
Communication and Contact with Nationals of the Sending State
1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:
o consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;
o if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;
o consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.
Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
The United States had ratified the VCCR Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. By ratifying the optional protocol, the United States had agreed to submit to the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the settlement of claims based on the VCCR. However, on 7 March, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice informed U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States “hereby withdraws” from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it — along with the rest of the Vienna Convention — in 1969. The USA was the first country to invoke the protocol before the ICJ, successfully suing Iran for the taking of 52 U.S. hostages in Tehran in 1979.
The following are examples of cases where foreign alliens’ rights were abuse though they committed a crime but in our case, a specific case, the individual was not accused of any crime but you are watching, the Americans are watching and the world is watching. What would they think of us?
The ICJ’s LaGrand Decision
On 27th June 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a binding judgment in the LaGrand case (Germany v USA) in which the Court ruled on the interpretation and application of rights conferred under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)
The ICJ’s LaGrand Decision
On 27th June 2001, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a binding judgment in the LaGrand case (Germany v USA) in which the Court ruled on the interpretation and application of rights conferred under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)
The ICJs Avena Decision
On January 9, 2003, the Government of Mexico initiated proceedings against the United States in the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”), alleging violations of the VCCR in the cases of Medellin and 53 other Mexican nationals facing the death penalty in the United States (Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)). Mexico simultaneously filed an application with the Court for the issuance of provisional measures, which would require the United States to take no actions that might prejudice the rights of Mexico or its nationals pending the Court’s decision on the merits.
On February 5, 2003 the International Court of Justice ordered the United States to temporarily stay the executions of three Mexican citizens on U.S. death row.”
(the International Justice Project)
Besides, such an individual has rights stipulated in the U.S. Constitution.
Let us think seriously about the way we think and treat issues especially when they concern our nationals particularly if they reside in the Diaspora.