the little things give you away.....
The Question: Given an acknowledgment that Thanksgiving is based on a racist myth that glosses over the genocide of Native Americans, what are we ethically bound to do to rectify this injustice?
Robert Jensen's Answer: Abolish Thanksgiving and replace it with a Day of Atonement and fasting. Until that happens, one should personally either partake in Thanksgiving festivities but bring the issues to the table, or (as he chooses) abstain altogether and spend the day thinking about how Native Americans have suffered.
My Response: I find Jensen's answer deeply problematic (as well as many of the comments offered by others--my 'favourite' was realist 101's "History's losers need to realize what century they live in and get on with their lives," which simply reeks of the fact that s/he is clearly not one of history's losers and has never tried to understand what it might be like to be on the losing side. Also the problem that this person implies that because different tribes were violent towards each other, they somehow were more deserving of their fate. The logic is, 'They killed each other, therefore it's not so bad that we came and killed them.' *Headdesk* Anyyyyyways.......).
I agree with his premise--the Thanksgiving story is a myth, and founding a holiday based on this myth is rather appalling. However, I don't agree with his conclusion for many reasons. First, (as he does recognize) most national holidays are based on myth. This stems from the self-creating nature of culture itself: culture creates itself and its own meaning, and national holidays and national myths are just one form of this creation. And Jensen is right to imply that we need to be aware of how illusory and harmful this particular myth is. But he's wrong to imply that it's being a myth is what makes it bad. Cultural myths can be positive and affirming. Jensen is also entirely wrong in how we should go about bringing awareness to harm of this particular myth.
Overlooking the pragmatic objection that the American government (and the American people) would almost certainly never support transforming Thanksgiving into a National Day of Atonement (How many other days of atonement do we have? Especially on formerly-cherished national holidays? Right, zero on both accounts.), why should it be Thanksgiving that gets replaced? As several people in the comments noted, while that may be the founding myth of Thanksgiving, the current meaning is about being thankful for what one has. The current meaning (because the meaning of cultural traditions can and do change) supercedes the past meaning. True, I don't think this particular argument holds for all things--yes, sometimes the history of an event or tradition necessarily makes its continuation bad (for instance, hanging a noose from a tree)--I just don't think that is true in this case. If any holiday is going to be nixed, how about Columbus day? It has practically no positive value, whereas Thanksgiving arguably does.
Also, Thanksgiving is merely one manifestation of the overwhelming invisibility of our abuse of Native Americans. Why is Thanksgiving the scapegoat of our stupidity? Certainly if we are ethically obligated to protest Thanksgiving, our ethical obligation in fact extends much further, to taking active moves towards helping end the continued poverty and oppression Native Americans continue to face. Isn't it more important to help their current condition than to recognize what we did in the past--shouldn't that come later on in the process (or does it just come first because it's easier to say one did something wrong than to actually do something to fix what one did wrong?)? Relative to concrete help, how would starving oneself make Native Americans feel better?
It just seems like a rather empty gesture and, even if it's not, it seems like a really insignificant gesture relative to other gestures that we are capable of making.
And that's just about his ideal situation, where Thanksgiving is replaced. In the meantime, I'm with other people in not seeing how his little private crusade really does anything other than antagonize. True, for change to occur, people often need to antagonize others--thus certain strains of activism. But sometimes these strains are justified in their methods, and sometimes they're actually counterproductive. I think Jensen's protest is a case of the latter. By not participating, he's not helping anyone. He is, as one person commented "cutting off his own nose to spite his face." So you didn't celebrate Thanksgiving. I'm sure Native Americans (1) know your sacrifice and (2) feel a whole better.
To my lovely people whose opinions I value, what do you think about Jensen's article and/or what I've said? Or, more generally, what are your own feelings on the politics and history of Thanksgiving?
A note on the song: Check out the lyrics (and the song). It's an interesting (and chilling) take on the psychology behind the aid response (or lack thereof) to New Orleans. You can download it here, if you're interested.
Haha... what's the second sentence of my current reading for thesis? "We not only create our selves by how we actualize tradition but also reveal ourselves to others by doing so." (from Philosophical Imagination and Cultural Memory)
Robert Jensen's Answer: Abolish Thanksgiving and replace it with a Day of Atonement and fasting. Until that happens, one should personally either partake in Thanksgiving festivities but bring the issues to the table, or (as he chooses) abstain altogether and spend the day thinking about how Native Americans have suffered.
My Response: I find Jensen's answer deeply problematic (as well as many of the comments offered by others--my 'favourite' was realist 101's "History's losers need to realize what century they live in and get on with their lives," which simply reeks of the fact that s/he is clearly not one of history's losers and has never tried to understand what it might be like to be on the losing side. Also the problem that this person implies that because different tribes were violent towards each other, they somehow were more deserving of their fate. The logic is, 'They killed each other, therefore it's not so bad that we came and killed them.' *Headdesk* Anyyyyyways.......).
I agree with his premise--the Thanksgiving story is a myth, and founding a holiday based on this myth is rather appalling. However, I don't agree with his conclusion for many reasons. First, (as he does recognize) most national holidays are based on myth. This stems from the self-creating nature of culture itself: culture creates itself and its own meaning, and national holidays and national myths are just one form of this creation. And Jensen is right to imply that we need to be aware of how illusory and harmful this particular myth is. But he's wrong to imply that it's being a myth is what makes it bad. Cultural myths can be positive and affirming. Jensen is also entirely wrong in how we should go about bringing awareness to harm of this particular myth.
Overlooking the pragmatic objection that the American government (and the American people) would almost certainly never support transforming Thanksgiving into a National Day of Atonement (How many other days of atonement do we have? Especially on formerly-cherished national holidays? Right, zero on both accounts.), why should it be Thanksgiving that gets replaced? As several people in the comments noted, while that may be the founding myth of Thanksgiving, the current meaning is about being thankful for what one has. The current meaning (because the meaning of cultural traditions can and do change) supercedes the past meaning. True, I don't think this particular argument holds for all things--yes, sometimes the history of an event or tradition necessarily makes its continuation bad (for instance, hanging a noose from a tree)--I just don't think that is true in this case. If any holiday is going to be nixed, how about Columbus day? It has practically no positive value, whereas Thanksgiving arguably does.
Also, Thanksgiving is merely one manifestation of the overwhelming invisibility of our abuse of Native Americans. Why is Thanksgiving the scapegoat of our stupidity? Certainly if we are ethically obligated to protest Thanksgiving, our ethical obligation in fact extends much further, to taking active moves towards helping end the continued poverty and oppression Native Americans continue to face. Isn't it more important to help their current condition than to recognize what we did in the past--shouldn't that come later on in the process (or does it just come first because it's easier to say one did something wrong than to actually do something to fix what one did wrong?)? Relative to concrete help, how would starving oneself make Native Americans feel better?
It just seems like a rather empty gesture and, even if it's not, it seems like a really insignificant gesture relative to other gestures that we are capable of making.
And that's just about his ideal situation, where Thanksgiving is replaced. In the meantime, I'm with other people in not seeing how his little private crusade really does anything other than antagonize. True, for change to occur, people often need to antagonize others--thus certain strains of activism. But sometimes these strains are justified in their methods, and sometimes they're actually counterproductive. I think Jensen's protest is a case of the latter. By not participating, he's not helping anyone. He is, as one person commented "cutting off his own nose to spite his face." So you didn't celebrate Thanksgiving. I'm sure Native Americans (1) know your sacrifice and (2) feel a whole better.
To my lovely people whose opinions I value, what do you think about Jensen's article and/or what I've said? Or, more generally, what are your own feelings on the politics and history of Thanksgiving?
A note on the song: Check out the lyrics (and the song). It's an interesting (and chilling) take on the psychology behind the aid response (or lack thereof) to New Orleans. You can download it here, if you're interested.
Haha... what's the second sentence of my current reading for thesis? "We not only create our selves by how we actualize tradition but also reveal ourselves to others by doing so." (from Philosophical Imagination and Cultural Memory)