Each year, as Thanksgiving Day rolls around, the blogosphere is bombarded with articles telling us that everything we know about Thanksgiving is wrong. In particular, these articles focus on the three-day event in autumn 1621, during which English colonists at Plymouth, Massachusetts, hosted 90 members of the Wampanoag tribe for a feast. Skeptical articles revisiting the Plymouth feast are often quite accurate, and generally act as a useful corrective against such mistakes as mythologizing American history, whitewashing the relationships between Europeans and American Indians, and seeing the past only through the lens of the present.
Sometimes, however, such articles go too far. This year, the New York Times added its august voice to this annual clamor of Thanksgiving skepticism, telling us (among other things) that the 1621 event was indeed the basis of our modern Thanksgiving, that the Wampanoag were not invited to the feast, and even—shockingly—that the celebrants ate no turkey! Luckily, I think there’s good cause to be skeptical of their claims. [Note added 2019: The link earlier in this paragraph goes to the original version of the Times article at the Internet Archive’s Wayback machine. They subsequently changed it to address some of our concerns, and the new version is here.]
It’s a sad reflection of the newspaper’s approach that their reporter, Maya Salam, mentions no primary sources and names neither of the contemporary authors who wrote about the feast. Edward Winslow and William Bradford, who both were at the 1621 feast, wrote separate accounts of the fall of 1621, which are widely available to read, online or off. I’ll quote them in full later on, but you can also find them on this simple pdf handout. Rather than refer to those accounts, Salam relies on historians, popular authors, and museum spokespeople to provide quotations interpreting the sources for us.
Salam’s article fails to flag many of the most important misconceptions that others have debunked before: for example, Salam tells us:
The Mayflower did bring the Pilgrims to North America from Plymouth, England, in 1620, and they disembarked at what is now Plymouth, Mass., where they set up a colony. In 1621, they celebrated a successful harvest with a three-day gathering that was attended by members of the Wampanoag tribe. It’s from this that we derive Thanksgiving as we know it.
In fact, it’s generally accepted that Thanksgiving as we know it was derived from several sources: regional and local Thanksgiving events among European colonists, some of which predate the Mayflower and occurred in Texas, Florida, Virginia, and Maine; national days of Thanksgiving, which were proclaimed periodically by Congress –first the Continental Congress and then the United States Congress—beginning in 1777 (at which time no one in America knew about the feast of 1621); and Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation of a day of Thanksgiving in 1863, in which he makes no mention of the events of 1621. (See the Library of Congress’s primary source set about Thanksgiving, this timeline of Thanksgiving events both before and after 1621, and this helpful blog post from Teaching with the Library of Congress.)
The American tradition of holding an occasional Thanksgiving holiday and the Plymouth colony’s 1621 event were first associated in the 1840s and 1850s, when the story of the colonists became generally known to Americans with the publication of Mourt’s Relation and Of Plymouth Plantation, which contain Winslow’s and Bradford’s respective accounts of the autumn of 1621. Since Americans had been celebrating regional and local Thanksgivings since before 1621, since the early national Thanksgivings, including Lincoln’s, were proclaimed without any reference to or knowledge of the events of 1621, and since the 1621 event in Plymouth was not itself a Thanksgiving, it’s fair to say that modern Thanksgiving was in no sense derived from the 1621 feast, although some people now take inspiration from the Plymouth story.
Even stranger are some of the Times’s claims about the 1621 event itself. They make a rather big deal of stating that “There’s no evidence that native people were invited.” They support this with a quotation from Kate Sheehan, a spokeswoman for the living history museum Plimoth Plantation: “The English-written record does not mention an invitation, and Wampanoag oral tradition does not seem to reach back to this event.” Sheehan suggests that it could have been an informal visit since the Wampanoag had their own fields close by, or a diplomatic visit. If one of these is the truth, she argues, the Wampanoag arrived without having been invited.
This seems to be hairsplitting, though. Winslow’s passage in Mourt’s Relation states:
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.
While it’s true that the word “invitation” is not mentioned, if a party of ninety people was “entertained and feasted” for three days within the Plymouth settlement, does this not imply that they were at least invited to stay once they had arrived? Both Winslow’s and Bradford’s accounts stress the friendly relations between the colonists and the natives, and although this situation did not last, the English writers, writing immediately after the event, sound perfectly happy to have hosted their Wampanoag guests. Given most common meetings of the word “invited,” the Wampanoag were thus invited to stay, even if the invitation wasn’t issued until they arrived on the scene.
Probably the strangest claim made by Salam in the Times is the one about that favorite Thanksgiving dish, the turkey. Under a heading proclaiming “There was no turkey or pie,” Salam tells us:
There was no mention of turkey being at the 1621 bounty…. If fowl graced the table, it was probably duck or goose.
There is simply no basis for the claim that there was no turkey, and Salam cites no source. First of all, it could not be clearer that fowl graced the table; there’s no reason to suggest that there’s any question about that. The passage from Mourt’s Relation mentions specifically that men were sent out to hunt fowl to make the meal more festive, and that they came back with enough for almost a week. While it’s true that Winslow doesn’t mention turkey, he doesn’t mention duck or goose either, so Salam shouldn’t claim without evidence or even a stated rationale that the fowl was “probably duck or goose.”
What’s more, there’s one more primary source which is relevant to the menu of the 1621 feast. It gives a list of foods the colonists ate in the autumn of 1621, and is generally accepted as a primary source for the menu of the 1621 event. This source is Of Plymouth Plantation, written by the governor of the colony William Bradford, who was also at the feast. Bradford specifically mentions that the colonists ate lots of turkey:
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.
Since Salam gives no source for the claim that there was no turkey on the menu, I have to guess at what the source might have been. It seems the claim was popularized by the novelist and food writer Andrew Beahrs, who included it in his book Twain’s Feast. Given that he repeated it in the New York Times some years ago, it seems likely he is the source. His own piece in the Times, which ran in the Opinion section, states:
The two early accounts of the meal tell us that the Wampanoag guests (who outnumbered the English settlers two to one) brought several deer, and that a party of Pilgrims returned from “fowling” with a good take. The latter almost certainly referred to ducks and geese, which migrate in autumn and could be taken much more easily than wary wild turkeys.
Gooseberries, wild plums and lobsters, as well as eels “trod” from the nearby salt marsh, completed a meal intimately bound to the surrounding land and water. Though corn prompted the celebration, and was doubtless included in pottages and stews, the centerpieces were all products of the bountiful yet intensely threatening natural world.
Oddly, then, Beahrs accepts that there are two sources, but he discounts one of them when it specifically mentions turkeys. He goes beyond what those sources actually state was enjoyed at the autumn feast by mentioning gooseberries, plums, lobsters and eels. These foods, just like turkeys, are mentioned in the sources, but not specifically in connection with the feast. Moreover, his reasoning that the fowl at the feast must refer to ducks and geese because turkeys were hard to catch is belied by Of Plymouth Plantation, which makes it clear that turkey was not just an occasional food item when the colonists were lucky, but a reliable source of food, of which they “took many” and had “great store.”
Faced with the same primary sources, my colleagues at the Library of Congress concluded that the menu included “wild turkeys, duck, geese, venison, lobsters, clams, bass, corn, green vegetables, and dried fruits.” How one could conclude from the evidence that turkey was specifically NOT on the menu, but lobsters were, is a mystery; it sounds more like a claim intended to be provocative than a reasoned interpretation of the sources.
And that, in the end, is the point. Wherever it appears, an article with the title “Most Everything You Learned About Thanksgiving Is Wrong” is likely to be striving for provocation over accuracy. Beware such articles’ claims; even the New York Times must survive in a clickbait jungle.
How can you tell more accurate articles from more sensational ones? The biggest red flags in Salam’s article are its failure to mention primary sources and its reliance on historians and popular interpreters, even while it specifically criticizes historians and popular interpreters for misrepresenting primary sources. (In fact, one of Salam’s main interview subjects works a for a museum with a vested interest in boosting the event at Plymouth as the origin of Thanksgiving, suggesting another reason to be skeptical.) So one rule of thumb might be to look for articles that tell you what the primary sources are, and that quote from those sources directly. Examples of such articles include this one from the Smithsonian institution, this one from Time Magazine, and (of course) the one you are reading right now!
In the case of the 1621 Plymouth feast, if you do read the sources, you’ll easily come to two conclusions: first, the colonists and their Wampanoag guests probably ate turkey supplied by the English, alongside venison supplied by Massasoit and his native friends; and, second, their holiday wasn’t in any real sense America’s “first Thanksgiving.”
Note added November 26, 2018
On November 29, 2017, one week after this blog post was published, the New York Times silently edited Salam’s article. They eliminated both the heading “There Was No Turkey or Pie” and the sentence “If fowl graced the table, it was probably duck or goose.” They also added a quotation from Tom Begley of Plimoth Plantation mentioning the the primary sources, the only time those sources are ever mentioned in the version of the article now online. In making these changes, they addressed many of the concerns I expressed in this post. Unfortunately, they did not acknowledge making the changes, leading some of my readers to think my criticisms might have been unfair and my quotations inaccurate. You can find the original version of Salam’s article, with the inaccurate statements intact, and without mention of the primary sources, preserved at this link by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
What starts out as a voicing of the debate on the authenticity of what gave rise to First Thanksgiving becomes a treatise on the first meals menu. Is this intended as a slight of hand trick? Now you see me prove Thanksgiving, now you don’t? I settled down to read this article ready to surrender my reservation. I am not one who celebrates our American Holidays based on the traditional explanation for thier existence. I find the outgrowths I have experiencing them more encouraging: Family gatherings and praising God’s gifts hold sway more than what I consider poppycock of Puritans Pilgram and Native Americans gathering. Yet I was ready to read with an open mind. Ok so the author of this piece won my respect. Yet I wonder why argue so convincingly over one matter (menu) when it does not prove the opening questions raised (first Thanksgiving)? Did I miss something? And why use an image so full of errors? Did Puritans dress liek that. Would Native Ameircans be bearback in the autumn? Ok so my jury is still out but now I know that whatever happened, the ate turkey goose, corn and lobster.
I addressed both the questions of whether the event was the “First Thanksgiving” and what was on the menu, not for any sleight of hand, but simply because I was responding to Salam’s article, which also brought up both questions. But your question is very useful in that allows us to make another important distinction between the two questions. Whether the event happened at all, and whether turkey was on the menu, are questions of fact. We have to approach them through the interpretation of sources, but in fact there either was or was not a feast at which they either did or didn’t eat turkey, so we’re trying to establish facts or at least a likelihood of what the facts are.
Whether the event was connected to our modern Thanksgiving, on the other hand, is more a question of interpretation. I was giving evidence to show that modern Thanksgiving was not historically derived from this 1621 event, and I think that evidence holds up. But it’s still possible to interpret the 1621 feast as part of the basis of our modern holiday, because if people refer to it in creating their own observances then it can be said to be at least the intellectual or emotional basis of their celebrations. This part is a matter of interpretation and intention, not historical fact.
I think that some Americans have grown attached to the idea that our Thanksgiving holiday should refer to this event. However, some think it’s inappropriate for European Americans to celebrate their relationship with American Indians, when that relationship has often been disastrous for the Native people involved; we see this also in reaction to Columbus Day. Because of this, it might be a good idea to stop interpreting this holiday as having anything to do with European and Native American contact.
By showing that the connection of Thanksgiving with the 1621 event is purely a matter of interpretation and not fact, I hope to suggest that we are free to interpret the holiday otherwise if we wish. I didn’t have time to go into that question fully in this post, but maybe next year!
Thanks again for your comment!
James Loewen sent out to his email list a copy of Maya Salam’s 2017 article, the one to which you are responding. Your response is certainly useful and interesting, but I was struck by one anomaly in it.
You quote her as saying: “There was no mention of turkey being at the 1621 bounty…. If fowl graced the table, it was probably duck or goose.”
I’ve been unable to find that quote in the article, and unfortunately the Wayback Machine doesn’t have the article cached, so I can’t find out if it was in an earlier version of it, although the only mentioned revision was regarding the name of Plimouth Plantation.
What she actually said was “Experts agree, though, that there was certainly some wild fowl — possibly goose, duck or turkey.”
This directly contradicts the point you were trying to make, that she specifically excluded turkey from the list of fowl, which is one of your two main points, particularly to eponymous one. Can you clarify this?
Thanks, Jim Loewen! Agreed on all counts.
Dick Atlee, The New York Times changed the article after they published it. They removed the statement “If fowl graced the table, it was probably duck or goose.” They replaced it with the segment that includes the quotation you noted: “Experts agree, though, that there was certainly some wild fowl — possibly goose, duck or turkey.” That sentence was not in the article I was responding to in this post. Luckily, the version I quoted can indeed be found through the Wayback machine, here:
I have added a note above pointing out what the Times has done. Luckily, the New York Times has not been able to expunge all evidence of the version I quoted from the (current) web. A republished version of Salam’s article in the Seattle Times, for example, still contains the quote in question. It credits her and The New York Times as sources. You can see that article here:
Looking at the NYT article, I see other changes too. The heading that now says “There’s no evidence that turkey was served” was at that time “There was no Turkey or Pie.” This became part of the Seattle Times’s headline for the piece, and remains as a heading in a version published in Oregon’s Register-Guard and Bend Bulletin:
The entire quotation from Tom Begley was also added after my critique was published. This was the only mention of “primary source writings” in the whole piece. It seems they may have read my criticism or similar criticisms from others and called Mr. Begley to specifically ask about primary sources since that was the article’s main deficiency in its original form. In any case, in addition to removing the heading “There was no Turkey or Pie.” Here is what they added after the critique:
I think it’s quite sneaky for the Times to change the article without noting it, especially when they DO note that they have changed it to correct a spelling error. This gives the impression that they would ALSO note any changes they made to correct factual errors, but this is apparently not the case. So, many thanks for pointing this out and giving me a chance to clear it up, otherwise my own article would seem to be factually inaccurate. I am writing to the Times to see whether they would consider noting the changes they made to the article.
Basically an accurate article. Certainly the matter of invitation was splitting hairs in the NYTIMES. As well, the only way the Wampanoags outnumbered the “Pilgrims” two to one, I think, is if you don’t count all the English as Pilgrims. And yes, Winick is right, there’s no evidence that turkeys were NOT served. He might have mentioned, however, that venison was surely the BIGGEST single dish, since the Wampanoags brought five, and five deer will feed a lot of “Pilgrims”!
I think you should make this a little bit more for children because my child is learning thanksgiving right now. She has to write a story about thanksgiving. I don’t know any more websites.
Thank you for this article. It is much needed and I will also spread/share your information alongside my own.
For nearly a decade I’ve been saying the same thing, either on my own blog page (Passion for the Past) or on my Facebook page. And yet, even with primary sources, I still get those who argue against me.
So this is good to see.