Hoping everyone had a good holiday with family and friends.
Showing posts with label Thanksgiving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thanksgiving. Show all posts
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Thursday, November 22, 2018
We Give Thanks Today, But Few United States Citizens Contemplate Giving Back
History books have given us a pretty story of the origin of this holiday. But as time has passed and the stories of the victors have been challenged, more and more people are jumping in to tell a different version. Some just quibble over the facts.
Some excerpts from the Daily Signal
Or give the indigenous credit for being more than the 'savages' that they were portrayed as in this more academic look at the government to government relationships between the new country and Indian tribes in Flashpoint:
European Americans justified their decimation of the Native population first on what they saw as their obvious superiority - based on not only their technical superiority, but also on their Christianity. They also, of course, justified killing Indians based on self-defense. The fact that they had invaded Indian land didn't seem to cross their minds.
The wealth of the United States - national and personal - is based on the take over of the land that had been inhabited by the indigenous people, through lopsided treaties (often signed by representatives of a tribe picked by the whites), through removal (ie Trail of Tears), and through massacre.
Our debt is so massive that for most US citizens, repaying that debt is inconceivable. But it's a debt we owe, and which should be repaid, if not in whole, in a significant way that is more than a token reparation.
We need to start imagining how this can be done. As well as recognize how much we still commit the kinds of crimes against other people today, that we committed against North America's indigenous people.
[Sorry, this one is rushed - being called to dinner.]
Some excerpts from the Daily Signal
"The Pilgrims very famously didn’t celebrate Christmas. They said, “There’s not a place in Scripture that authorizes the celebration of Jesus’ birth. There’s no scripture that tells us when it occurred.” And they saw it as an invention that the Catholic Church had basically created. . ."
". . . The first time that you really would say that Thanksgiving becomes a national holiday is during the American Civil War. And that would not have been realized at the time—we see it more from hindsight. But Abraham Lincoln in 1863 issued a proclamation in the fall, making the fourth Thursday in November of that year a day of national Thanksgiving. And he primarily means it as a day of thanksgiving for the way that God was aiding Northern armies in the war against the South. And that also doesn’t endear Southerners to a Thanksgiving holiday."
" . . .And I joke—but also sort of mean it seriously—that one of the things that ultimately reconciles Southerners to Thanksgiving is the development of football.
And by the 1890s, the national championship game for what was the forerunner of the NCAA was being held annually in New York City on Thanksgiving Day. And well before 1900, the tradition of having football games on Thanksgiving Day is sweeping across the country. And Southerners find out that the holiday isn’t that bad after all."
"There had been 18 wives on the Mayflower, 14 of whom had died in the first winter. And so most of the married couples now were separated by death.Some put the relationship with the indigenous peoples into a different perspective like this one titled "The Real Story of Thanksgiving" (again, some excerpts)
Large numbers of the children had lost a parent, there were some children present who had lost all parents and siblings. It was an overwhelmingly male, now single gathering, and also a young gathering, in that about half of the group was teenagers or younger."
"The story began in 1614 when a band of English explorers sailed home to England with a ship full of Patuxet Indians bound for slavery. They left behind smallpox which virtually wiped out those who had escaped. By the time the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts Bay they found only one living Patuxet Indian, a man named Squanto who had survived slavery in England and knew their language. He taught them to grow corn and to fish, and negotiated a peace treaty between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Nation. At the end of their first year, the Pilgrims held a great feast honoring Squanto and the Wampanoags.
But as word spread in England about the paradise to be found in the new world, religious zealots called Puritans began arriving by the boat load. Finding no fences around the land, they considered it to be in the public domain. Joined by other British settlers, they seized land, capturing strong young Natives for slaves and killing the rest. But the Pequot Nation had not agreed to the peace treaty Squanto had negotiated and they fought back. The Pequot War was one of the bloodiest Indian wars ever fought.
In 1637 near present day Groton, Connecticut, over 700 men, women and children of the Pequot Tribe had gathered for their annual Green Corn Festival which is our Thanksgiving celebration. In the predawn hours the sleeping Indians were surrounded by English and Dutch mercenaries who ordered them to come outside. Those who came out were shot or clubbed to death while the terrified women and children who huddled inside the longhouse were burned alive. The next day the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared "A Day Of Thanksgiving" because 700 unarmed men, women and children had been murdered."
Or give the indigenous credit for being more than the 'savages' that they were portrayed as in this more academic look at the government to government relationships between the new country and Indian tribes in Flashpoint:
"When Christopher Columbus thought he had discovered the “New World” in 1492, it is estimated that 10-30 million native people lived in North America, that is, in the present day countries of Mexico, United States and Canada. These millions of people lived under governments of varying sophistication and complexity. These native governments were viable and fully operational political bodies which controlled their citizens and their territories and were an important factor in the development of the United States government we live under today."This National Geographic article says the population dropped in half not long after Columbus arrived.
European Americans justified their decimation of the Native population first on what they saw as their obvious superiority - based on not only their technical superiority, but also on their Christianity. They also, of course, justified killing Indians based on self-defense. The fact that they had invaded Indian land didn't seem to cross their minds.
The wealth of the United States - national and personal - is based on the take over of the land that had been inhabited by the indigenous people, through lopsided treaties (often signed by representatives of a tribe picked by the whites), through removal (ie Trail of Tears), and through massacre.
Our debt is so massive that for most US citizens, repaying that debt is inconceivable. But it's a debt we owe, and which should be repaid, if not in whole, in a significant way that is more than a token reparation.
We need to start imagining how this can be done. As well as recognize how much we still commit the kinds of crimes against other people today, that we committed against North America's indigenous people.
[Sorry, this one is rushed - being called to dinner.]
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Popcorn at the First Thanksgiving?
 |
| From Popcorn! illustrated by Brian Lies |
Popcorn! by Elaine Landau and illustrated by Brien Lies, has a section called "Popcorn at the First Thanksgiving?"
"Some people think that popcorn was served at the first Thanksgiving. One story says that the Native Americans brought a deerskin bag of popcorn to the feast as a gift for the colonists, who had never tasted this food. But people who study this stuff say it never happened. They claim that corn wasn't grown in the area until much later."
But you can have popcorn for Thanksgiving. If you do or not, I hope it's a happy gathering of people you love and you treat each other with compassion and respect.
The book was from the children's section of the library and has too many words on the page to keep my grand daughter's interest. no problem. I'm thankful to have grandchildren, to know them, and to be together with my them and their parents this week.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Happy Thanksgiving: Remembering Some Of The First Immigrants
 |
| Turkey made by one of the younger generation in my family |
The pilgrims (as they were to be called much later) were among a persecuted religious group (Puritans) that fled England for Holland in the early 1600s. Some eventually moved to the nearby university town of Leiden. But that didn't last either. From the Pilgrim Hall Museum:
"After a decade in Leiden, the low wages, the danger of renewed war with Spain, and concern for their children's future led them to seek another solution. The Leiden Separatist community decided to relocate to America."They returned to England and prepared for their journey to Virginia.
The trip over was rough. From Eyewitness to History:
"Problems plagued their departure from the start. Leaving Southampton on August 5 aboard two ships (the Mayflower and the Speedwell) they were forced back when the Speedwell began to leak. A second attempt was thwarted when the Speedwell again began to leak and again the hapless Pilgrims returned to port.
Finally, after abandoning the Speedwell, 102 Pilgrim passengers departed from Plymouth aboard the Mayflower on September 6. The intended destination was Virginia where they planned to start a colony. After a journey of 66 days they made landfall at Cape Cod near present-day Provincetown - more than 600 miles off course."
The pilgrims arrived Dec. 21, 1620. From the Pilgrim Hall Museum:
The Pilgrims' Landing in America
Having landed on Cape Cod, a small party set out to explore. Coming on a place where Native People had stored corn underground, they confiscated it to use for seed. Finding poor soil and lack of fresh water, they decided to look further.
The Mayflower’s pilot, Robert Coppin, remembered Plymouth Harbor from a previous visit.
An exploring party set out in the shallop:
...though it was very dark and rained sore, yet in the end they got under the lee of a small island [Clark's Island] and remained there all that night in safety... And this being the last day of the week, they prepared there to keep the Sabbath. On Monday they sounded the harbor and found it fit for shipping, and marched into the land and found divers cornfield, and little running brooks, a place (as they supposed) fit for situation. At least it was the best they could find.
- William Bradford [emphasis added]
The first few months were disastrous. From National Humanities Center:
"But that which was most sad and lamentable was that in two or three months’ time half of their company died, especially in January and February, being the depth of winter, and wanting [lacking] houses and other comforts; being infected with the scurvy and other diseases, which this long voyage and their inaccomodate condition had brought upon them, so as there died sometimes two or three of a day, in the aforesaid time, that of one hundred and odd persons, scarce fifty remained. And of these in the time of most distress, there was but six or seven sound [healthy] persons who, to their great commendations be it spoken, spared no pains, night or day, but with abundance of toil and hazard of their own health, fetched them wood, made them fires, dressed [prepared] them meat, made their beds, washed their loathsome clothes, clothed and unclothed them; in a word, did all the homely and necessary offices for them which dainty and queasy stomachs cannot endure to hear named; and all this willingly and cheerfully, without any grudging in the least, showing herein their true love unto their friends and brethren. A rare example and worthy to be remembered." [emphasis added]If you look at the list of people on the Mayflower, you'll see married women, children, adolescents, and men. One baby was born during the voyage and another in harbor. Here's a list of the Mayflower passengers and a brief account of them.
It wasn't until March 1621 that they made official contact with the indigenous people. From the Pilgrim Hall Museum again:
The English were moving into a region where Native Peoples already lived. Seventeenth-century Europeans believed that their colonizing effort was justified because they were "improving" the land in European ways of intensive farming and permanent villages. The Europeans also believed their colonizing effort was justified by the introduction of the Christian religion.
POLITICS AND COEXISTENCE
The weakened group of colonists worked hard to build houses and gather food. While they occasionally saw Native People from a distance, it was not until March 1 of 1621 that an Abenaki named Samoset entered the little village of Plymouth, "saluted us in English and bade us ‘Welcome!’ for he had learned some broken English among the Englishmen that came to fish at Monhegan [Maine]."
Samoset brought Tisquantum (Squanto) to meet the colonists. Squanto, a Wampanoag native of Patuxet, was kidnapped by an English sea captain in 1614, returning to his homeland with an English explorer in 1619. Massasoit, a sachem of the Wampanoag, then came to Plymouth.
The two groups approached each other cautiously, exchanging hostages. The Wampanoag sought to balance the dominance of the powerful Narragansett. The colonists sought to ensure security for their fledgling settlement. On April 1, 1621, they agreed upon an alliance of mutual support.
THE TREATY WITH MASSASOIT
"... the coming of their great Sachem, called Massasoiet. Who, about four or five days after, came with the chief of his friends and other attendance, with the aforesaid Squanto. With whom, after friendly entertainment and some gifts given him, they made a peace with him (which hath now continued this 24 years) in these terms:
I. That neither he nor any of his, should injure or do hurt to any of their people.
II. That if any of his did any hurt to any of theirs, he should send the offender that they might punish him.
III. That if any thing were taken away from any of theirs, he should cause it to be restored; and they should do the like to his.
IV. That if any did unjustly war against him, they would aid him; and if any did war against them, he should aid them.
V. That he should send to his neighbours confederates to certify them of this, that they might not wrong them, but might be likewise comprised in the conditions of peace.
VI. That when their men came to them, they should leave their bows and arrows behind them.
From: Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford,edited by Samuel Eliot Morison(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), p. 80-81
From the Pilgrim Hall Museum are two primary sources of that event (both from the pilgrims' perspective, of course.)
That 1621 celebration is remembered as the "First Thanksgiving in Plymouth." There are two (and only two) primary source descriptions of the events of the fall of 1621. In Mourt’s Relation, Edward Winslow writes:
"our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."
In Of Plymouth Plantation, William Bradford writes:It sure sounds like their need to leave their home country and their experience as boat people and their difficult situation on arrival isn't all that different from immigrant experiences around the world today.
"They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides, they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports."
Friday, November 18, 2016
Stand Strong And Protect Those For Whom Trump Comes First . . .
About the author:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
"Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, despite his ardent nationalism. Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out...”
There are a lot of parallels to the rise of Trump and the rise of Hitler. There are probably a lot of parallels between Trump's rise and other less notorious authoritarians which may be closer fits. But it's the one comparison I know best. And it's probably been better documented than others. And there are a lot of similarities From History place:
"Adolf Hitler and the Nazis waged a modern whirlwind campaign in 1930 unlike anything ever seen in Germany. . . . Hitler offered something to everyone: work to the unemployed; prosperity to failed business people; profits to industry; expansion to the Army; social harmony and an end of class distinctions to idealistic young students; and restoration of German glory to those in despair. He promised to bring order amid chaos; a feeling of unity to all and the chance to belong. He would make Germany strong again; end payment of war reparations to the Allies; tear up the treaty of Versailles; stamp out corruption; keep down Marxism; and deal harshly with the Jews."One only has to substitute the date and the names - US for Germany, 2016 for 1930, payments to NATO for war reparations to the Allies, NAFTA, TPP, and Climate Treaty for treaty of Versailles, Muslims for Jews, and this would read like a description of Trump.
But there are also differences. One is that Hitler's Germany had a centralized government. American states have a lot of independence from Washington and states' rights has been a traditional Republican value.
Another difference is that we know what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. There are still some people alive who experienced it. The example is still in our memories. And we have lots of documentary evidence of what happened and how.
Americans would do well to reflect on the Niemöller quote.
The campaign has already targeted Muslims and immigrants, and people close to Trump are associated with white nationalism. Trump's grandfather was arrested at a KKK and Fascist rally in 1927. So these values aren't alien to the Trump family.
Those of us who believe in the rule of law, in decency and tolerance for human beings of all races and religions, have good reason to stand up for those targeted by the Trump administration. If not for altruistic purposes, then to protect yourself and your family when the first targets - it would appear they'll be Muslims and immigrants - have been dispatched. We need to reach out and embrace these groups and resist Trump's attempts to target groups of people based not on what individuals have done, but based on assumptions about the guilt of the groups.
One immediate effort Americans can make is to invite Muslims and immigrant families to their Thanksgiving dinner. Or find out where there will be community dinners where you can help out. Show them your support. Get to know them and let them know you. Connect so that if and when Trump moves to disrupt their lives, you will know and you will support them, and resist the kind of things that happened not only in Germany, but in the US with the internment camps for the Japanese.
It's time for good, loyal Americans to speak up.
I hope that those of us who fear the worst are totally wrong. But Hitler's rise to power was as surprising in its time as Trump's rise is now. People dismissed his most extreme views and focused on the positive things he promised - the jobs, the renewed glory of German people. We have that example relatively fresh in our history. Let's not let it repeat itself today. When Germany was eventually defeated in WW II, the United States assumed the role of the leading country in the world. Today, the most powerful countries in the world ready to take the place of the US on the world stage are Russia and China.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Happy Thanksgiving Political Correctness
'Real'* political correctness is when the government punishes people who do not follow the prescribed way of behaving or who criticize the government's ideology. It's not about opinion, or about tolerance, it's about having the power to impose one's ideology on others.
The term 'politically correct' is surfacing a lot once again. Generally it's used to criticize attempts to purge offensive language. The current campus protests over the term "black lives matter" is a case in point. Ben Carson calls this 'political correctness going amok."
And Thanksgiving regularly brings on its own 'political correctness' battles.
Actually this one only mentions political correctness in the title and complains about liberals talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner. I'm guessing the editor stuck political correctness in the title simply because it stirs people up and they'll click on it. And that media use here, like in other controversies, may be the biggest issue here. But that's another post.
But those emotions do indicate a conflict. Mostly about how things have 'always' been and challenges to the stories that paint the US as the greatest nation ever, papering over little aberrations such as slavery, income inequality, and the attempted decimation of Native Americans who were in the way of Manifest Destiny.
That's clearly the case for Thanksgiving: "Dammit, let's just sit down and eat our turkey and watch football and stop yammering about the poor Indians" versus "Thanksgiving celebrates the Europeans being saved by Native Americans just before the Europeans took all their land and killed most of them off."
My take on 'political correctness' in general is that in the past, the US was dominated by white, male, Protestants of means. They had the economic power and political power and could dictate not only what was going to happen, but also the stories about what had happened in the past.
There were a number of encroachments starting with Andrew Jackson's election, the abolition of slavery, Irish and Italian immigration, the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators), and the Nineteenth Amendment (women's right to vote). In the mid 20th Century, school desegregation and the Voting Rights Act were big changes. Immigration reform in 1965 that ended the dominance of European immigrants, the Vietnam War, the election of a black President, and eventually gay rights and same sex marriage all whittled away at the perceived power and privilege of white, male, Protestants. The wealthy found ways to keep their power and used their affinity to poor, white, male Protestants to rally their political support with appeals to anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-tax, and anti-immigration themes. All the while attacking any comments about economic inequality as 'class warfare."
Today, it's bad to be called a racist. The term PC is most often used when people are chastised or even lose their jobs for using terms that are deemed racist or offensive to people based on group, rather than individual, characteristics. But in the 1950s and beyond, being labeled a communist could cost one one's job. Same thing for being labeled a homosexual. During the 1960's, the use of certain four letter words was forbidden in most formal settings and Vietnam war protestors were called traitors.
Political correctness has been with us forever, but the term has been associated particularly with efforts of people on the left to promote their values. The same actions by people on the right have been seen as 'normal,' as simply protecting traditional values.
The underlying concept of political correctness is to prevent someone from doing or saying something that is not in line with those in power.
When conservatives attack gays or limits on government displays of religion, no one calls that 'political correctness', but it is precisely that. It's trying to prevent people from doing or saying things which do not agree with their belief system. It gained the label of PC only when the conservatives no longer had the power to impose their values on everyone else.
I attribute this to a changing balance of power. In the past, the political, social, and economic systems all supported things like oppression of blacks, of women, of gays. So much so that people assumed that it was the normal, natural way things were supposed to be. They didn't recognize that such oppression was simply the imposition of the ideology and/or personal interests of those in power over those without power.
When those traditionally without power began to challenge them, the challengers were seen as the people imposing political correctness and the power holders couldn't even see their own long term imposition of political correctness.
Wikipedia has a detailed article tracing the evolution of the term 'political correctness.' In the 20th Century, it was first used to mean following the Communist Party line. Then, it started being used in arcane leftist academic debates. Next,
To me, political correctness is not a good thing. People in a democracy should be able to debate and make decisions based on a wide ranging consideration of the pros and cons of any situation. I've commented on the recent resignations of college presidents over how people of color are treated on their campuses.
I get it that middle-class white folks, who used to have things pretty good, are upset because their economic situation is eroding, or for many, the belief that they could always do better is eroding. Laws and policies that kept women and people of color from power did give white males privileges and power that others just didn't have. As the playing field levels, I'm sure it's scary.
But what does it mean for Thanksgiving?
I like the idea of a holiday in which we stop and give thanks for what we have. And as we notice what all we do have, we might also notice that others are doing without, and that we can share with them.
That this holiday is linked with a particular story about history that makes everything seem warm and fuzzy, when this was not the case, is problematic. Can Native Americans truly be comfortable with this holiday? I suspect not. That's the most serious issue.
Is there a way to delink the holiday from the Pilgrims? Maybe. Is there a way to retell the story that would be more accurate and satisfy most Native Americans? I doubt it. Is there a way to recognize what the European settlers did to the original North American population and makes satisfactory amends? Maybe, but the damage was so massive, that I doubt it can be repaired, or that voters would approve it if it could be. Is there a symbolic way to make amends? Probably lots, beginning with respect and recognition of the damage done.
And finally, I have to address the question whether I too am guilty of exploiting the term political correctness for Thanksgiving hits. That may be some small part of my motivation here. I had been working on a post about political correctness already, and it seemed appropriate to tie these two together.
Happy Thanksgiving.
* Of course, with issues such as this, 'real' doesn't quite exist. The meaning of things is interpretation and different people interpret things differently.
The term 'politically correct' is surfacing a lot once again. Generally it's used to criticize attempts to purge offensive language. The current campus protests over the term "black lives matter" is a case in point. Ben Carson calls this 'political correctness going amok."
And Thanksgiving regularly brings on its own 'political correctness' battles.
- Thanksgiving and Political Correctness - this one eventually gets to complaining about a school that decided to drop the Thanksgiving and Christmas and just call their days off 'school holidays.'
- Have a Politically-Correct Thanksgiving - this one complains about how traditional Thanksgiving stories sugar coat what really happened and leave out the genocide of Native Americans.
- Social Commentary: A ‘politically correct’ Thanksgiving? - This one weighs the inaccurate story of the original Thanksgiving, the genocide of Native Americans, and says kids need to know the awful facts. It then concludes that these really have little to do with what Americans celebrate on Thanksgiving, so go eat your turkey.
Actually this one only mentions political correctness in the title and complains about liberals talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner. I'm guessing the editor stuck political correctness in the title simply because it stirs people up and they'll click on it. And that media use here, like in other controversies, may be the biggest issue here. But that's another post.
But those emotions do indicate a conflict. Mostly about how things have 'always' been and challenges to the stories that paint the US as the greatest nation ever, papering over little aberrations such as slavery, income inequality, and the attempted decimation of Native Americans who were in the way of Manifest Destiny.
That's clearly the case for Thanksgiving: "Dammit, let's just sit down and eat our turkey and watch football and stop yammering about the poor Indians" versus "Thanksgiving celebrates the Europeans being saved by Native Americans just before the Europeans took all their land and killed most of them off."
My take on 'political correctness' in general is that in the past, the US was dominated by white, male, Protestants of means. They had the economic power and political power and could dictate not only what was going to happen, but also the stories about what had happened in the past.
There were a number of encroachments starting with Andrew Jackson's election, the abolition of slavery, Irish and Italian immigration, the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators), and the Nineteenth Amendment (women's right to vote). In the mid 20th Century, school desegregation and the Voting Rights Act were big changes. Immigration reform in 1965 that ended the dominance of European immigrants, the Vietnam War, the election of a black President, and eventually gay rights and same sex marriage all whittled away at the perceived power and privilege of white, male, Protestants. The wealthy found ways to keep their power and used their affinity to poor, white, male Protestants to rally their political support with appeals to anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-tax, and anti-immigration themes. All the while attacking any comments about economic inequality as 'class warfare."
Today, it's bad to be called a racist. The term PC is most often used when people are chastised or even lose their jobs for using terms that are deemed racist or offensive to people based on group, rather than individual, characteristics. But in the 1950s and beyond, being labeled a communist could cost one one's job. Same thing for being labeled a homosexual. During the 1960's, the use of certain four letter words was forbidden in most formal settings and Vietnam war protestors were called traitors.
Political correctness has been with us forever, but the term has been associated particularly with efforts of people on the left to promote their values. The same actions by people on the right have been seen as 'normal,' as simply protecting traditional values.
The underlying concept of political correctness is to prevent someone from doing or saying something that is not in line with those in power.
When conservatives attack gays or limits on government displays of religion, no one calls that 'political correctness', but it is precisely that. It's trying to prevent people from doing or saying things which do not agree with their belief system. It gained the label of PC only when the conservatives no longer had the power to impose their values on everyone else.
I attribute this to a changing balance of power. In the past, the political, social, and economic systems all supported things like oppression of blacks, of women, of gays. So much so that people assumed that it was the normal, natural way things were supposed to be. They didn't recognize that such oppression was simply the imposition of the ideology and/or personal interests of those in power over those without power.
When those traditionally without power began to challenge them, the challengers were seen as the people imposing political correctness and the power holders couldn't even see their own long term imposition of political correctness.
Wikipedia has a detailed article tracing the evolution of the term 'political correctness.' In the 20th Century, it was first used to mean following the Communist Party line. Then, it started being used in arcane leftist academic debates. Next,
[t]he previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S. Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as "politically correct". . .
After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US. It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Newsweek both used the term "thought police" in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which "captured the press's imagination."
To me, political correctness is not a good thing. People in a democracy should be able to debate and make decisions based on a wide ranging consideration of the pros and cons of any situation. I've commented on the recent resignations of college presidents over how people of color are treated on their campuses.
I get it that middle-class white folks, who used to have things pretty good, are upset because their economic situation is eroding, or for many, the belief that they could always do better is eroding. Laws and policies that kept women and people of color from power did give white males privileges and power that others just didn't have. As the playing field levels, I'm sure it's scary.
But what does it mean for Thanksgiving?
I like the idea of a holiday in which we stop and give thanks for what we have. And as we notice what all we do have, we might also notice that others are doing without, and that we can share with them.
That this holiday is linked with a particular story about history that makes everything seem warm and fuzzy, when this was not the case, is problematic. Can Native Americans truly be comfortable with this holiday? I suspect not. That's the most serious issue.
Is there a way to delink the holiday from the Pilgrims? Maybe. Is there a way to retell the story that would be more accurate and satisfy most Native Americans? I doubt it. Is there a way to recognize what the European settlers did to the original North American population and makes satisfactory amends? Maybe, but the damage was so massive, that I doubt it can be repaired, or that voters would approve it if it could be. Is there a symbolic way to make amends? Probably lots, beginning with respect and recognition of the damage done.
And finally, I have to address the question whether I too am guilty of exploiting the term political correctness for Thanksgiving hits. That may be some small part of my motivation here. I had been working on a post about political correctness already, and it seemed appropriate to tie these two together.
Happy Thanksgiving.
* Of course, with issues such as this, 'real' doesn't quite exist. The meaning of things is interpretation and different people interpret things differently.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Tofurkey: When Vegetarian Food Is Based On Trying To Copy Meat
Tofurkey, vegeburgers, vegan bacon, meatless meatballs, and other non-meat versions of meat dishes can all taste ok, even good. But the eater, especially someone who isn't a vegetarian, will be inevitably be comparing the meatless version with the real version. And most of the time, the fake meat won't live up to the real thing. Disappointment, and at least an unconscious conclusion that vegetarian food is second class.
In India, things are turned around. Meat restaurants are labeled non-veg. Veg is first. When you start with vegetables, you create recipes that take advantage of the flavors, textures, and colors of the various fruits and grains and leafy bounty of the earth. Indian cuisine marvelously combines all these gifts of nature in such delicious variety that one would never need to eat flesh.
Of course, when one is raised on meaty meals, habit and emotional attachments give meat an allure that is hard to give up. The connection, for example, between Thanksgiving and turkey is hard to overcome. My casual vegetarianism allows me to eat a little turkey.
Evolutionarily, humans are omnivores. We have canines in our tooth collection. Eating meat is natural for humans. But so is eating vegetarian. A turkey-free Thanksgiving, in my view, is better than a fake turkey substitute. The key ingredients in a Thanksgiving dinner are family, friends, and appreciation of all we have to be thankful for, not the turkey.
[This was originally posted Nov. 27, 2014 at 8:27am, but Feedburner didn't pick it up and update blogrolls, so I'm reposting in hopes it might get onto blogrolls.]
In India, things are turned around. Meat restaurants are labeled non-veg. Veg is first. When you start with vegetables, you create recipes that take advantage of the flavors, textures, and colors of the various fruits and grains and leafy bounty of the earth. Indian cuisine marvelously combines all these gifts of nature in such delicious variety that one would never need to eat flesh.
Of course, when one is raised on meaty meals, habit and emotional attachments give meat an allure that is hard to give up. The connection, for example, between Thanksgiving and turkey is hard to overcome. My casual vegetarianism allows me to eat a little turkey.
Evolutionarily, humans are omnivores. We have canines in our tooth collection. Eating meat is natural for humans. But so is eating vegetarian. A turkey-free Thanksgiving, in my view, is better than a fake turkey substitute. The key ingredients in a Thanksgiving dinner are family, friends, and appreciation of all we have to be thankful for, not the turkey.
[This was originally posted Nov. 27, 2014 at 8:27am, but Feedburner didn't pick it up and update blogrolls, so I'm reposting in hopes it might get onto blogrolls.]
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Thanksgiving - Conflicted Thoughts On A Conflicted Holiday
[Every post is a draft, but this one feels more drafty than others. Go back to cooking.]
It's hard to fault the idea of a day for giving thanks.
But the quaint story about Pilgrims feasting and thanking the local indigenous people who saved them that first winter in Plymouth has been exposed for some time now. The left out parts have been added: the four hundred years of European immigrants' genocide of Native Americans through war, through appropriation of their land, and death marches to distant reservations, assimilation, and destruction of their cultures and their resources, leave a bitter taste with the Thanksgiving turkey.
The cultural movement that exposed the hypocrisy of our Thanksgiving holiday has also exposed other hypocrisies. The people who benefited from and still cling to the cleansed view of history are finding little cover as the lies and distortions of how they benefited from the appropriation of the land and labor from those deemed as 'the other' are dissolving. (My use of 'they' is questionable too. My parents arrived on these shores in the 1930s, with very little. But at the very least, their whiteness did give them privileges that people of other skin tones didn't get. And I still get them. But I'm not clinging to the myths.)
I think today's sharp political, economic, and world view divide among Americans, is in part due to the emergence of these new political truths, which, themselves will be modified as time passes. And I think fundamental differences in how we see the world have always existed, but those who were, in the past, able to keep their world view as the ruling view, are seeing that power slip away. And they aren't taking it well.
The Constitution (the most basic contract that all Americans implicitly agree on) guarantees us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These seem to be the basic values and all the other guarantees are the means to these ends.
But those world views, biased by our different economic and political situations, interpret 'liberty' and 'pursuit of happiness' differently. And we don't even agree on what life means, when it begins, and when it's morally ok to end it.
Pursuit of Happiness
'Pursuit of happiness' does NOT mean, to many with wealth (from enough not to worry to so much it's disgusting), the right of others to tax their 'hard earned' money to help others to pursue happiness. Even many of those whose 'hard earned' money was inherited believe this. They seem to believe Dad worked hard, so I deserve it. And Dad believes that he earned it with no help from anyone else. It was self-made.
The land taken from Native Americans was their due. As was the labor taken from slaves. These are the most stark examples, but there are countless ways that people have been able to get laws passed that benefited them over others - gave their industry reduced taxes or increased subsidies. Privileged their children from better schools to how the law treated them. The list goes on and on. If the 'self-made men' don't acknowledge these benefits, who would expect them to acknowledge the benefits we all get?
Even those who got their money from using their brain to develop an idea and to turn it into a product or service and found a way to get it to market and to earn a good profit, still didn't do it alone, as Obama so infamously said. They had the backing of a government whose criminal and justice systems kept others from stealing their ideas and profits. Whose banking systems allowed them to raise, safely store, and exchange funds without the value of those funds fluctuating wildly. They were able to hire employees who had a public education that enabled them to do the work needed. Their country's economy was strong enough that people had enough money to buy their products and services. Their raw materials got to their factories on publicly subsidized roads and railroads and their finished products got to consumers the same way.
Yes, there were often frustrating government regulations - but at least they were written down and passed by an elected legislature and could be challenged in court. They weren't arbitrary decisions made on the spot by corrupt officials leaving the entrepreneur to pay a bribe or get turned down, or worse. That happens in many countries. And part of the reason our laws are so complicated is that their entrepreneurial colleagues, rather than accept the spirit of the law, hire lawyers to find loopholes in the letter of the law. This forces the legislature to write more and more laws in a never ending cycle to close loopholes and expand the volume of regulations.
Anyone whose business was set to open in Damascus two years ago, or in Juarez, or in Madrid or Athens would appreciate the importance of all the amenities that a stable, reasonably honest government provides: the infrastructures that enable people to start a business and succeed.
And, of course, there is luck. Being at the right place at the right time. Other would-be entrepreneurs, just as smart, with equally good ideas and talent, don't succeed because they open their business just as the economy tanks or a tornado hits, a new health report scares customers from their product, or a competitor shows up at the same time with a slightly better product or a heftier marketing budget.
But 'self-made' men (Ayn Rand's mythical heroes) don't see any of these factors that supported their success. Nor do they see how the system is stacked against others.
Self-made men see those who are not 'successful' as lazy and unworthy. "If I did it, anyone can." They don't see their luck in having innate talents that were valued in their cultural setting and useful in their business, that family networks opened the right doors at the right time, that a teacher or friend gave them an important boost when they needed it. They don't think how the risky actions they survived (a red light run, an insult made, a lawyer trusted) could have just as easily derailed their success.
On the other hand, there are those among the poor, who blame the rich for their situations and avoid the hard work of learning skills at school, of getting and keeping a job, of planning for the future. They see the world as so stacked against them that that they don't even try. Just like the wealthy who disdain them, they are at the mercy of genetic inheritance and environmental breaks. And certainly their bad breaks diminish the odds of their succeeding compared to the folks who despise them as lazy and unmotivated. And when they stand up and protest their miserable conditions, they are condemned as unpatriotic rioters.
Happiness
And if we disagree on the 'pursuit' part, we also disagree on what the 'happiness' part means. For some it is tied completely to monetary wealth - whether they have it or not. For others, wealth is about relationships - family who stand by you, friends who celebrate your victories and console your losses with you. With social wealth, there will almost always be enough to eat and pay the rent, however modest the food and shelter may be.
For me, economic wealth, without social wealth, is empty. It's the lack of such social security that, I think, causes the 'self-made' heroes to blame poverty on the poor. In the absence of social wealth, their economic wealth represents their success. And social wealth is hard to achieve if one's network can't provide enough economic wealth to maintain a basic level of food and shelter and safety.
The belief in the necessity of competition because we live in a zero-sum world, goes hand-in-hand with the self-made myth. "It's everyone for himself" justifies the callousness to the plight of others. But always fighting has to be tiring. If Tony Soprano is at all realistic, it doesn't lead to happiness, only the trappings of success.
At the bottom of the economy, we find those among the hard core poor also living in a world of competition, of every-man-for-himself. They'd understand the business leaders who are constantly raiding competitors and destroying other businesses.
OK, this is getting grim for Thanksgiving. And straying from the Thanksgiving theme. But I'm looking for why so many people see problems more than they see benefits. As more of a thinker than a feeler, I believe that understanding reveals the possible paths to change. I think that people who act more on emotion can change too, without consciously understanding why. I think to the extent that they feel more love and more accepted and supported, they can let down their guard a bit. And ultimately, I think 'thinkers' are ruled more by emotion than by rationality as well.
Remember, I started out saying these were more notes than a coherent post.
I like the idea of a day for giving thanks. I seem to be able to uncouple Thanksgiving Day from the story of the Pilgrims and just make it a day of humility and appreciation for the things I have. And I have a lot to be thankful for.
So I'll stop here and give thanks for the time I get to spend with my mom now, time that seems to give us both some comfort. I give thanks for my children's ability to negotiate the world's changing economic, social, and technological environments with reasonable success and with care for others who are not so successful at it. I give thanks for being able to participate in the beginnings of my grand daughter's journey through life. I give thanks for a wife who puts up with all I put her through. And I give thanks that I live where I have the freedom to write what I think.
I hope that everyone reading this far is able to find much to be thankful for too.
It's hard to fault the idea of a day for giving thanks.
But the quaint story about Pilgrims feasting and thanking the local indigenous people who saved them that first winter in Plymouth has been exposed for some time now. The left out parts have been added: the four hundred years of European immigrants' genocide of Native Americans through war, through appropriation of their land, and death marches to distant reservations, assimilation, and destruction of their cultures and their resources, leave a bitter taste with the Thanksgiving turkey.
The cultural movement that exposed the hypocrisy of our Thanksgiving holiday has also exposed other hypocrisies. The people who benefited from and still cling to the cleansed view of history are finding little cover as the lies and distortions of how they benefited from the appropriation of the land and labor from those deemed as 'the other' are dissolving. (My use of 'they' is questionable too. My parents arrived on these shores in the 1930s, with very little. But at the very least, their whiteness did give them privileges that people of other skin tones didn't get. And I still get them. But I'm not clinging to the myths.)
I think today's sharp political, economic, and world view divide among Americans, is in part due to the emergence of these new political truths, which, themselves will be modified as time passes. And I think fundamental differences in how we see the world have always existed, but those who were, in the past, able to keep their world view as the ruling view, are seeing that power slip away. And they aren't taking it well.
The Constitution (the most basic contract that all Americans implicitly agree on) guarantees us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These seem to be the basic values and all the other guarantees are the means to these ends.
But those world views, biased by our different economic and political situations, interpret 'liberty' and 'pursuit of happiness' differently. And we don't even agree on what life means, when it begins, and when it's morally ok to end it.
Pursuit of Happiness
'Pursuit of happiness' does NOT mean, to many with wealth (from enough not to worry to so much it's disgusting), the right of others to tax their 'hard earned' money to help others to pursue happiness. Even many of those whose 'hard earned' money was inherited believe this. They seem to believe Dad worked hard, so I deserve it. And Dad believes that he earned it with no help from anyone else. It was self-made.
The land taken from Native Americans was their due. As was the labor taken from slaves. These are the most stark examples, but there are countless ways that people have been able to get laws passed that benefited them over others - gave their industry reduced taxes or increased subsidies. Privileged their children from better schools to how the law treated them. The list goes on and on. If the 'self-made men' don't acknowledge these benefits, who would expect them to acknowledge the benefits we all get?
Even those who got their money from using their brain to develop an idea and to turn it into a product or service and found a way to get it to market and to earn a good profit, still didn't do it alone, as Obama so infamously said. They had the backing of a government whose criminal and justice systems kept others from stealing their ideas and profits. Whose banking systems allowed them to raise, safely store, and exchange funds without the value of those funds fluctuating wildly. They were able to hire employees who had a public education that enabled them to do the work needed. Their country's economy was strong enough that people had enough money to buy their products and services. Their raw materials got to their factories on publicly subsidized roads and railroads and their finished products got to consumers the same way.
Yes, there were often frustrating government regulations - but at least they were written down and passed by an elected legislature and could be challenged in court. They weren't arbitrary decisions made on the spot by corrupt officials leaving the entrepreneur to pay a bribe or get turned down, or worse. That happens in many countries. And part of the reason our laws are so complicated is that their entrepreneurial colleagues, rather than accept the spirit of the law, hire lawyers to find loopholes in the letter of the law. This forces the legislature to write more and more laws in a never ending cycle to close loopholes and expand the volume of regulations.
Anyone whose business was set to open in Damascus two years ago, or in Juarez, or in Madrid or Athens would appreciate the importance of all the amenities that a stable, reasonably honest government provides: the infrastructures that enable people to start a business and succeed.
And, of course, there is luck. Being at the right place at the right time. Other would-be entrepreneurs, just as smart, with equally good ideas and talent, don't succeed because they open their business just as the economy tanks or a tornado hits, a new health report scares customers from their product, or a competitor shows up at the same time with a slightly better product or a heftier marketing budget.
But 'self-made' men (Ayn Rand's mythical heroes) don't see any of these factors that supported their success. Nor do they see how the system is stacked against others.
Self-made men see those who are not 'successful' as lazy and unworthy. "If I did it, anyone can." They don't see their luck in having innate talents that were valued in their cultural setting and useful in their business, that family networks opened the right doors at the right time, that a teacher or friend gave them an important boost when they needed it. They don't think how the risky actions they survived (a red light run, an insult made, a lawyer trusted) could have just as easily derailed their success.
On the other hand, there are those among the poor, who blame the rich for their situations and avoid the hard work of learning skills at school, of getting and keeping a job, of planning for the future. They see the world as so stacked against them that that they don't even try. Just like the wealthy who disdain them, they are at the mercy of genetic inheritance and environmental breaks. And certainly their bad breaks diminish the odds of their succeeding compared to the folks who despise them as lazy and unmotivated. And when they stand up and protest their miserable conditions, they are condemned as unpatriotic rioters.
Happiness
And if we disagree on the 'pursuit' part, we also disagree on what the 'happiness' part means. For some it is tied completely to monetary wealth - whether they have it or not. For others, wealth is about relationships - family who stand by you, friends who celebrate your victories and console your losses with you. With social wealth, there will almost always be enough to eat and pay the rent, however modest the food and shelter may be.
For me, economic wealth, without social wealth, is empty. It's the lack of such social security that, I think, causes the 'self-made' heroes to blame poverty on the poor. In the absence of social wealth, their economic wealth represents their success. And social wealth is hard to achieve if one's network can't provide enough economic wealth to maintain a basic level of food and shelter and safety.
The belief in the necessity of competition because we live in a zero-sum world, goes hand-in-hand with the self-made myth. "It's everyone for himself" justifies the callousness to the plight of others. But always fighting has to be tiring. If Tony Soprano is at all realistic, it doesn't lead to happiness, only the trappings of success.
At the bottom of the economy, we find those among the hard core poor also living in a world of competition, of every-man-for-himself. They'd understand the business leaders who are constantly raiding competitors and destroying other businesses.
OK, this is getting grim for Thanksgiving. And straying from the Thanksgiving theme. But I'm looking for why so many people see problems more than they see benefits. As more of a thinker than a feeler, I believe that understanding reveals the possible paths to change. I think that people who act more on emotion can change too, without consciously understanding why. I think to the extent that they feel more love and more accepted and supported, they can let down their guard a bit. And ultimately, I think 'thinkers' are ruled more by emotion than by rationality as well.
Remember, I started out saying these were more notes than a coherent post.
I like the idea of a day for giving thanks. I seem to be able to uncouple Thanksgiving Day from the story of the Pilgrims and just make it a day of humility and appreciation for the things I have. And I have a lot to be thankful for.
So I'll stop here and give thanks for the time I get to spend with my mom now, time that seems to give us both some comfort. I give thanks for my children's ability to negotiate the world's changing economic, social, and technological environments with reasonable success and with care for others who are not so successful at it. I give thanks for being able to participate in the beginnings of my grand daughter's journey through life. I give thanks for a wife who puts up with all I put her through. And I give thanks that I live where I have the freedom to write what I think.
I hope that everyone reading this far is able to find much to be thankful for too.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Thanksgiving Lemmings
This is a map of planes in real time over the United States at 6:30pm Wednesday night Alaska time. You can check this site yourself at flightradar. Most of these people - I'm guessing all of these planes are pretty full - have suffered TSA to be with family for Thanksgiving.
It would be nice to have our kids here and my mom, but I wouldn't want to subject any of them to a Thanksgiving weekend flying experience.
Here's Southcentral Alaska - Anchorage , Matsu, Kenai, and Prince William Sound - about the same time. When you zoom into a smaller area the planes aren't so crowded together. At flightradar you can put your cursor on any plane and it shows you the airline and flight number. Then, if you double click on the id, it gives you lots more information. I didn't do that when I got the original screen shot, but I just did another EVA plane that was just leaving Anchorage and here's what I got:
EVA638
- Airline: Eva Air
- Flight: BR638
- From: Anchorage, Ted Stevens (ANC)
- To: New York, John F Kennedy (JFK)
- Aircraft: Boeing 747-45EF (SCD) (B744)
- Reg: B-16483
- Altitude: 27800 ft (8473 m)
- Speed: 480 kt (889 km/h, 552 mph)
- Track: 90°
- Hex: 8990C2
- Squawk: 0
- Pos: 61.2999 / -147.769
- Radar: T-F5M
- Cockpit View
I've got enough things in my life pulling my attention in different directions, and I never quite understood how it would make my life better, so I've not signed up for Twitter. But every now and then I do end up there and try to figure out how it's supposed to make my life better.
And I found a picture of the airtraffic map here. Then I tried to figure out where it came from, since I didn't see a link to the source or any source. I tried to embed the whole tweet, but all it gave me was his text. I can cut and paste that myself:
This is insane. The number of planes currently in the air for holiday travel. pic.twitter.com/WEYOgIv4
Andrew Kaczynski
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Should You Wash The Turkey? How Long To Cook It? And Mary's Little Lamb
Happy Thanksgiving to you all. Is there anyone in your life who made a difference when you needed it? This is a good day to call her up and say thank you. Go ahead. Even if you have people coming over in two hours. Just say, Hi, I wanted to say thank you. I don't have a lot of time now, but I'll call you back. But I didn't want to wait any longer. Thanks!
Meanwhile, if you're trying to figure out how to prepare that turkey, you'll find a bit of variation in the advice online.
Wash the turkey or not? I get contradictory advice:
Better Homes and Gardens:
Cooking times are closer but still vary greatly
Here are three recommendations. We have a 21 pound turkey the advice from these three different sites are, for cooking at 325˚F: 4.5-5 hours, 5.5 - 6 hours, and 3.5-4.5. What seems to be common among them all is that it's done when the inside temperature should be 165˚F.
From the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service :
Timetables for Turkey Roasting
(325 °F oven temperature)
Use the timetables below to determine how long to cook your turkey. These times are approximate. Always use a food thermometer to check the internal temperature of your turkey and stuffing.
From Homecooking at aboutdotcom:
This one, I just realized, is from AskAndyAbout Clothes.
Do I want to take turkey cooking advice from a clothes blog? And he doesn't say where his information comes from. But I like his times.
Last year we took advice to cook the turkey faster and it was great.
And what does Mary's Little Lamb have to do with Thanksgiving? Find out below.
From History.com:
Meanwhile, if you're trying to figure out how to prepare that turkey, you'll find a bit of variation in the advice online.
Wash the turkey or not? I get contradictory advice:
Better Homes and Gardens:
Don't wash the bird. Washing raw poultry is not necessary, and the splashing water may contaminate surrounding objects. In general, the less you handle poultry, the safer it remains.Epicurious:
Washing
Finally, rinse the outside of the turkey and inside the cavity with cool water and pat dry. As a precaution against the spread of harmful bacteria, be sure to wash the sink, countertop, and any utensils that have come in contact with the uncooked meat, as well as your own hands, with soap and water.
Cooking times are closer but still vary greatly
Here are three recommendations. We have a 21 pound turkey the advice from these three different sites are, for cooking at 325˚F: 4.5-5 hours, 5.5 - 6 hours, and 3.5-4.5. What seems to be common among them all is that it's done when the inside temperature should be 165˚F.
From the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service :
Timetables for Turkey Roasting
(325 °F oven temperature)
Use the timetables below to determine how long to cook your turkey. These times are approximate. Always use a food thermometer to check the internal temperature of your turkey and stuffing.
| Unstuffed | |
| 4 to 8 pounds (breast) | 1½ to 3¼ hours |
|---|---|
| 8 to 12 pounds | 2¾ to 3 hours |
| 12 to 14 pounds | 3 to 3¾ hours |
| 14 to 18 pounds | 3¾ to 4¼ hours |
| 18 to 20 pounds | 4¼ to 4½ hours |
| 20 to 24 pounds | 4½ to 5 hours |
From Homecooking at aboutdotcom:
| Approximate Roasting Times for Unstuffed Turkey | |
| 6 to 8 pounds | 2-1/2 to 3 hours |
| 8 to 12 pounds | 3 to 4 hours |
| 12 to 16 pounds | 4 to 5 hours |
| 16 to 20 pounds | 5 to 5-1/2 hours |
| 20 to 24 pounds | 5-1/2 to 6 hours |
This one, I just realized, is from AskAndyAbout Clothes.
Do I want to take turkey cooking advice from a clothes blog? And he doesn't say where his information comes from. But I like his times.
| Turkey weight with giblets | Oven temp | Internal temp when done | Cooking time |
| 10-13 lb. | 350° F | 165° | 1 ½ to 2 ¼ hr. |
| 14-23 lb. | 325° | 165° | 2 to 3 hr. |
| 24-27 lb. | 325° | 165° | 3 to 3 ¾ hr. |
| 28-30 lb. | 325° | 165° | 3 ½ to 4 ½ hr. |
Last year we took advice to cook the turkey faster and it was great.
And what does Mary's Little Lamb have to do with Thanksgiving? Find out below.
From History.com:
In 1817, New York became the first of several states to officially adopt an annual Thanksgiving holiday; each celebrated it on a different day, however, and the American South remained largely unfamiliar with the tradition.
In 1827, the noted magazine editor and prolific writer Sarah Josepha Hale—author, among countless other things, of the nursery rhyme “Mary Had a Little Lamb”—launched a campaign to establish Thanksgiving as a national holiday. For 36 years, she published numerous editorials and sent scores of letters to governors, senators, presidents and other politicians.
Abraham Lincoln finally heeded her request in 1863, at the height of the Civil War, in a proclamation entreating all Americans to ask God to “commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.” He scheduled Thanksgiving for the final Thursday in November, and it was celebrated on that day every year until 1939, when
Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the holiday up a week in an attempt to spur retail sales during the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s plan, known derisively as Franksgiving, was met with passionate opposition, and in 1941 the president reluctantly signed a bill making Thanksgiving the fourth Thursday in November.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Dormant Recessive Vampire Genes? Neckrophilia?
Thanksgiving is like a vegetarian day of Lent. We don't have to give up vegies entirely, but we are required to taste the flesh of dead animals so that we understand the fleeting pleasure the beast-like craving for animal flesh gives our regular meat eating friends and relatives and why they defend their heathen practice as 'normal.'
In fact I've found a sermon, Not Like the Beasts, that helps explain all this.
What does it tell us that, when faced with any attempt to make the case that this substance should be harder to get than it is, some reliable subset of defenders can be counted on to respond more like animals than like people? If such is not the very definition of addiction, what is?It was the insight regarding the animal-response that has stuck with me since I first read this article. It’s not just, it seems to me, those enslaved to pornography who may lash out when their sin is exposed. No.
Instead, it seems to me that any of us is tempted to respond like that whenever the light encroaches on our dark places. And Satan is surely pleased that it can devolve us into beasts.
It may be an aspect of the mystery of lawlessness that causes us, at times, to respond not with gratitude but with (un)righteous indignation when our pet addictions, our personal idolatries, are exposed.
If we respond with disdain when our spending habits come under scrutiny, perhaps we’ve fallen into mammon-worship. If we respond with vitriol when our relationships are questioned, perhaps those relationships are inappropriate. If we respond with hatred when our particular political party is critiqued, perhaps we’re worshiping the wrong king.And if one responds thusly to having one's carnivorous lusting pointed out, perhaps one is worshiping the destruction of life and gluttony.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving turkey and remember, it gave its life to bring income to turkey farmers (not too much), agro-business (a lot), and retail food outlets (more than farmers), as well as satanic pleasure to your palate.
And vegetarians, savor this date of eating flesh so that you are less judgmental of your flesh-eating brethren. This is, for many, an addiction which they cannot escape, despite the cruelty suffered by so many of the animals they devour, despite the damage caused to the environment by factory farms and by the need to destroy forests to grow feed for the animals, despite the unnatural chemicals in the flesh they devour. Show them understanding and lead them out of temptation, not through your own self-righteous nagging, but through your own good example.
tic
"Here he comes, swelling like a turkey-cock"
Discovery News tells us about the findings of a study published in February 2010:
According to the University of Illinois Extension website:
From Birds of Shakespeare:
But let's go back to those pre-Columbian turkeys. I found traces of information and then I found this from foodtimeline:
And finally, the jackpot - a paper which "was read at the Central States Anthropological Society meetings, March II, 1989, University of Notre Dame, by the senior author."
(the link below is a PDF file)
So, as you eat your Thanksgiving turkey today, you are following a tradition (eating turkey, not our Thanksgiving holiday dinner) that goes back a long way in North and Central America. But I'm guessing the didn't keep their turkeys wrapped in plastic in the fridge.
Native Americans had already domesticated turkeys twice: first in south-central Mexico at around 800 B.C. and again in what is now the southwestern U.S. at about 200 B.C., according to a new study. . .
"Interestingly, the domestic turkeys were initially raised for their feathers, which were used in rituals and ceremonies, as well as to make feather robes or blankets," lead author Camilla Speller told Discovery News. "Only later, around 1100 A.D., did the domestic turkeys become an important food source for the Ancestral Puebloans."(Wired had a better story on this.)
According to the University of Illinois Extension website:
Spaniards brought tame Mexican turkeys to Europe in 1519, and they reached England by 1524. The Pilgrims actually brought several turkeys to America on the voyage in 1620.England had turkeys for only 40 years when William Shakespeare was born in 1564 and 75 years when he wrote Henry V.
From Birds of Shakespeare:
The turkey-cock, introduced into Europe from the New World in the early part of the sixteenth century, had become quite naturalized in the farm-yards of England by the time of Elizabeth the First. It is several times alluded to by Shakespeare, sometimes as a symbol of conceited ostentation, and also as an article of food. When in King Henry V Gower sees Pistol approaching, he exclaims to Fluellen “Here he comes, swelling like a turkey-cock,” to which the Welshman, who had resolved to make the braggart eat the leek, replies, “’Tis no matter for his swellings nor his turkey-cocks.” [V, 1]
But let's go back to those pre-Columbian turkeys. I found traces of information and then I found this from foodtimeline:
"Aztec food...is a subject for which relatively rich written source material exists...The chronicle of Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who accompanied Cortes...and the illustrated work...of Father Sahagun, written in the 1530s, are full of fascinating detail for food historians. The Aztecs, coming south from the deserts of New Mexico, had in the 14th century occupied sites in the valley of Mexico, an area rich in lakes, whose produce (fowl of many kinds, fish, frogs, water insects, algae) the newcomers adopted with enthusiasm. They flourished and established their dominion over a wide area...Sahagun tells us they feasted...on white tortillas, grains of maize, turkey eggs, turkeys, and all kinds of fruit. He gives a list of 25 fruits, including four varieties of sweet potato, sweet manioc, avocados, and come cacti. It is said that they flinched from chocolate at first, but when the Indians set the example they drank and found it good...The description by Bernal Diaz of how Motechuhzoma was served and ate, and of the thousands of jars of foaming chocolate, is famous. It contrasts strongly with the general impression of the Aztecs as an abstemious and frugal people, who subsisted on meagre fare and for whom fast...were a part of the way of life...Maize was the staple food of the Aztecs and the focus of a large part of their religion...The food value of the maize was greatly enhanced by the process called nixtamalization...Beans and chia were important enough to figure as items of tribute paid to the Aztec state, as were amaranth and squash seeds. Chilli was available...The short list of domesticated creatures has headed by the turkey and included the dog as well as...bees. The culinary sophistication of the Aztecs is apparent from the extraordinarily long list of spices and flavourings which they would use with chocolate."
---Oxford Companion to Food, Alan Davidson [Oxford University Press:Oxford] 1999 (p. 44)
And finally, the jackpot - a paper which "was read at the Central States Anthropological Society meetings, March II, 1989, University of Notre Dame, by the senior author."
(the link below is a PDF file)
Evidence for Pre-Columbian Animal Domestication in the New World
D.L. Johnson
B.K. Swartz, Jr.
Ball State University
Muncie, Indiana
. . .Here we will discuss seven animals domesticated in the New World before European discovery. The dog, "llama", guinea pig, turkey, Muscovy duck, stingless bee, and the cochineal insect comprise the list of known Pre- Columbian, New World animal domesticates. . . (p. 1)
Turkeys; Meleagris gallopavo
Turkeys are found throughout North and Central America. Domesticated turkey bones appear in the Tehuacan Valley sequence early in the Palo Blanco phase, ca. AD 180. This is the oldest reliably dated evidence for the domestic turkey in Mesoamerica (Flannery 1966:175).
MacNeish (1966:290) points to the hybridization of turkeys, as evidence by bones found at Tehuacan, as proof that the turkey was domesticated. Bones found in the Northwest of Mexico and the Southwest United States, with earlier dates, as well as genetic similarities amoung present day domestic and wild turkey populations in the "Southwest United States, indicate that domesticated turkeys spread from the greater Southwest to Tehuacan"
(1966: 19-5) .
Analysis of coproliths, radiocarbon dating ca. AD 180, from the Tehuacan Valley shows the presence of turkey feathers and bees in the diets of the people living there (Callen 1966:273, 265). Turkey bones found in the basin-valley sites in the Northern Sierra suggest that the bird was originally taken from its mountain habitat and penned in the lower valley villages (Di Peso 1977:7) .
Three varieties of turkeys were found at Casas Grandes, ca. AD 250. They were: 1) the Small Indian Domestic, -most popular at the New Mexico Tompiro pueblos in the Rio Grande drainage; 2) the Large Indian Domestic, resembling birds from east central Arizona; and 3) the Tse Tala. which was a very large bird (Di Peso 1974:602). Evidence of egg shells and bones suggest that the Small and Larqe Indian Domestics were hybridized (Di Peso 1974:603) •
The earliest naturalist to give an account of the domestic turkey was Oviedo y Valdes. Slightly confused, he described turkeys that he had seen in the West Indies soon after the Conquest, "Whither they had been brought," he said, "from Spain" (Di Peso 1535:306).
Earlier records of turkeys include the lists of food served by Moctezuma to Cortes and his men in 1518 (Anderson and Dibble 1978:19; Prescott 1847:89). Prescott (1847:101) records that the yearly expenditure of the Aztec king Tezcuco included 8000 turkeys. Tepexi received tribute from his people in 1537, to give to Cortes, that included turkeys (Gorenstein 1971:341). Di Peso (1974:602) mentioned the use of turkeys for trade, plumage, blood for decoration and religious ceremonies in Casas Grandes, as well as grave goods. (pp. 37-38)
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Don't trust the internet with your giblets
I've just pulled the giblets from the turkey. Well, there's a neck, liver, heart, and what I've always understood to be the gizzard. What's a gizzard?
Well, I looked up giblets. Here's why we have to be careful of what we find online. Fortunately, these were all in the same place so obviously most of them had to be wrong.
From Topix:
And the gizzard? From Merriam-Webster online:
Well, I looked up giblets. Here's why we have to be careful of what we find online. Fortunately, these were all in the same place so obviously most of them had to be wrong.
From Topix:
United States
Turkey Giblets are those hangey downey things from a turkey's face.
they are best prepared if you suck them off instead of cutting them off. now if u cut them off be sure to boil them in water to have the same moisture affect as sucking them off. you may then eat them any way you please. i like mine on a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich. now you can also try them on a torilla wrap with tomatoes and lettus. you can hardley tell the giblets from the tomatoes!
No Ma'am. The Giblets are the edible offal of a fowl, typically including the heart, gizzard, liver, and other visceral organs. The term is culinary usage only; zoologists do not refer to the "giblets" of a bird. Giblets is pronounced with a "soft g" sound (jib-lit) as opposed to a "hard g", as in gizzard.
So enjoy those fine giblets this Thanksgiving
people!
Look your all wrong, i worked in a meat abador for years and the giblets are the liver and the feathers of the turkey mushed up. Best served with vodka just before your dinner mmmmmm vodka how i would love some right now.Call me 079XX100198
Lee Elliott
Are you all nuts?here are a couple of definitions from the free dictionary:
The giblets include all the remains of the butchering process. These often include anything swept from the floor. Since the reign of King James, these must be included, in a paper bag, inside the gutted turkey. Traditionally, fingers of workers and slaves would find their way into the mix and mean good luck for the new year for those who pluck them from their teeth.
The traditional dish of giblets is served the next day as breakfast, the famous poem, "Ode To A Giblet Bag, Oh, Nonny-Noh!" is read out. Prepare with equal measure of porridge oats and drizzle with honey.
gib·lets (j
b
l
pl.n.
The edible heart, liver, or gizzard of a fowl.
[From Middle English gibelet, from Old French, game stew, perhaps alteration of *giberet, from gibier, game.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
giblets [ˈdʒɪblɪts]
pl n
(Cookery) (sometimes singular) the gizzard, liver, heart, and neck of a fowl
[from Old French gibelet stew of game birds, probably from gibier game, of Germanic origin]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
And the gizzard? From Merriam-Webster online:
Main Entry: giz·zard
Pronunciation: \ˈgi-zərd\
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of Middle English giser gizzard, liver, from Anglo-French gesir, giser, from Latin gigeria (plural) giblets
Date: 1565
1 a : the muscular enlargement of the alimentary canal of birds that has usually thick muscular walls and a tough horny lining for grinding the food and when the crop is present follows it and the proventriculus b : a thickened part of the alimentary canal in some animals (as an insect or an earthworm) that is similar in function to the crop of a bird
2 : innards
Giving Thanks for What and to Whom?
I've been ambivalent about Thanksgiving for a long time. Thanksgiving - in my experience - is a time when family and friends come together, consider and give thanks for their blessings, and enjoy each other's company.
But then there's all that stuff about Pilgrims in Plymouth. If any of the basic story is true, the European immigrants essentially came to North America, were helped to survive their first difficult winter, and then went on to decimate their hosts and take over the land. Not a good basis for a holiday of thanksgiving.
And then there's all that poultry that's cooped up, butchered, frozen, and shipped to supermarkets, raising questions about how healthy the meat is and how humanitarian the turkeys are treated. I focused on that two years ago.
About two weeks ago, a friend sent me an article called "How I Stopped Hating Thanksgiving And Learned To Be Afraid" by Robert Jensen. Here are some excerpts.
In recent years I have refused to participate in Thanksgiving Day meals, even with friends and family who share this critical analysis and reject the national mythology around manifest destiny. In bowing out of those gatherings, I would often tell folks that I hated Thanksgiving. I realize now that "hate" is the wrong word to describe my emotional reaction to the holiday. I am afraid of Thanksgiving. More accurately, I am afraid of what Thanksgiving tells us about both the dominant culture and much of the alleged counterculture. . .
Although it's well known to anyone who wants to know, let me summarize the argument against Thanksgiving: European invaders exterminated nearly the entire indigenous population to create the United States. Without that holocaust, the United States as we know it would not exist. The United States celebrates a Thanksgiving Day holiday dominated not by atonement for that horrendous crime against humanity but by a falsified account of the "encounter" between Europeans and American Indians. When confronted with this, most people in the United States (outside of indigenous communities) ignore the history or attack those who make the argument. This is intellectually dishonest, politically irresponsible, and morally bankrupt. . .
He's enjoying his righteous indignation a bit too much I think. After all, can't we make this day of thanksgiving mean whatever we want it to mean? From his perspective, and this is the part I have to think about seriously..
Most leftists who celebrate Thanksgiving claim that they can individually redefine the holiday in a politically progressive fashion in private, which is an illusory dodge: We don't define holidays individually or privately -- the idea of a holiday is rooted in its collective, shared meaning. When the dominant culture defines a holiday in a certain fashion, one can't pretend to redefine it in private. To pretend we can do that also is intellectually dishonest, politically irresponsible, and morally bankrupt.
He certainly likes that refrain. . . intellectually dishonest, politically irresponsible, and morally bankrupt. Phil, can you put that to music?
As I said above, I have qualms about Thanksgiving, but his claims to own the truth here and call people who disagree names seems disingenuous too. And he never even mentions the killing of all the turkeys every year.
The way he puts it, it seems we have only a couple of options: Keep on being hypocrites or abandon Thanksgiving. Possibly there's a third option - some official decoupling Thanksgiving from the story of the pilgrims. I'd argue that that can happen gradually as more and more people do that in their personal celebrations - consciously talk about the new meaning of Thanksgiving at their dinners.
I'm planning to partake in Thanksgiving, remembering the good things of this year and of my life and offering thanks. But I'm also going to remember that a sentient creature was sacrificed so that we might eat. We may even find some alternative to a turkey one day. And if this day of giving thanks is based on pilgrims whose descendants took everything from the descendants of their hosts, then we must contemplate that too while we eat. We can't change what happened, but we can live our lives in ways that prevent things like that from happening on our watch.
As I said above, I have qualms about Thanksgiving, but his claims to own the truth here and call people who disagree names seems disingenuous too. And he never even mentions the killing of all the turkeys every year.
The way he puts it, it seems we have only a couple of options: Keep on being hypocrites or abandon Thanksgiving. Possibly there's a third option - some official decoupling Thanksgiving from the story of the pilgrims. I'd argue that that can happen gradually as more and more people do that in their personal celebrations - consciously talk about the new meaning of Thanksgiving at their dinners.
I'm planning to partake in Thanksgiving, remembering the good things of this year and of my life and offering thanks. But I'm also going to remember that a sentient creature was sacrificed so that we might eat. We may even find some alternative to a turkey one day. And if this day of giving thanks is based on pilgrims whose descendants took everything from the descendants of their hosts, then we must contemplate that too while we eat. We can't change what happened, but we can live our lives in ways that prevent things like that from happening on our watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)