Posted by Jim Lindgren:
The First Thanksgiving Dinner (as depicted in the New York Times).--
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_11_19-2006_11_25.shtml#1164302863
For Thanksgiving 2004, I [1]posted an account of the Massachusetts
Pilgrims� first Thanksgiving in 1621.
Last Thanksgiving, the New York Times ran a bizarre [2]op-ed by
Professor James E. McWilliams of Texas State University at San Marcos
on our anachronistic views of the food served at the first
Thanksgiving.
McWilliams in the [3]2005 New York Times:
They Held Their Noses, and Ate
No contemporary American holiday is as deeply steeped in culinary
tradition as Thanksgiving. Not only is the day centered on a feast,
but it's also a feast with a narrowly proscribed list of foods -
usually some combination of turkey, corn, cranberries, squash and
pumpkin pie. Decorated with these dishes, the Thanksgiving table
has become a secular altar upon which we worship America's
pioneering character, a place to show reverence for the rugged
Pilgrims who came to Plymouth in peace, sat with the Indians as
equals and indulged in the New World's cornucopia with gusto.
But you might call this comfort food for a comfort myth.
The native American food that the Pilgrims supposedly enjoyed would
have offended the palate of any self-respecting English colonist --
the colonial minister Charles Woodmason called it "exceedingly
filthy and most execrable." Our comfort food, in short, was the
bane of the settlers' culinary existence.
But the colonial minister Charles Woodmason was not a Pilgrim writing
in the 1620s. Woodmason was a famously prejudiced Anglican missionary
to backcountry Carolina, describing the habits of Irish and
Scots-Irish settlers in his diary during 1766-68, over 140 years after
the pilgrim�s Thanksgiving. Here is the sort of food that Woodmason
[4]was complaining that the poor Appalachians were eating and not
eating:
"Clabber, butter, fat mushy bacon, cornbread," [Woodmason] wrote,
"as for tea and coffee they know it not . . . neither beef nor
mutton nor beer, cyder or anything better than water." . . .
Woodmason noted that "the people are all from Ireland, and live
wholly on butter, milk, clabber and what in England is given to
hogs.�
So Woodmason�s derisive comments, quoted by McWilliams, refer not to
the diet of the Pilgrims, but to the very different diet common in
Appalachia on the eve of American Revolution. Clabber (a form of sour
milk somewhat like cottage cheese or yogurt) was a common food in
Northern England, but was treated as only fit for animals in Southern
England. I located no evidence that the Plymouth pilgrims ate this
staple of the Carolina backcountry diet. While the pilgrims had
brought some bacon and butter on the Mayflower, the voyage was so
poorly provisioned that it has been speculated that it was quickly
gone after arriving. The Pilgrims probably had little or no milk,
since they had no cows, though there is a small chance that they had a
goat. And Woodmason�s complaint that the settlers had no coffee or tea
would never have been made by a 1620s pilgrim since they had probably
never tasted either one. In 1620, [5]tea had not yet been introduced
into England, and [6]England�s first coffeehouse was founded in 1650
(there were 3,000 such shops by 1675).
Woodmason also complained that the food in 1767 backcountry Carolina
was all boiled, but the Pilgrims favored roasting. And Woodmason was
disgusted by the whisky drinking in western Carolina in the 1760s,
while the Pilgrims didn�t drink whisky.
As for Indian corn, which was a staple of the Pilgrim�s diet, the
sources I consulted do not support the notion of revulsion to that
food either. In the very December 11, 1621 [7]letter that described
the 1621 Thanksgiving, Edward Winslow advises the next group of
settlers not to bring more rice than they will need for the voyage
because of the attractiveness of Indian corn: Our Indian corn, even
the coarsest, makes as pleasant meat as rice; therefore spare that,
unless to spend by the way.
McWilliams goes on:
Understanding this paradox requires acknowledging that there's no
evidence to support the holiday's early association with food --
much less foods native to North America. Thanksgiving celebrations
occurred irregularly at best after 1621 (the year of the supposed
first Thanksgiving) and colonists observed them as strictly
religious events (conceivably by fasting).
It wasn't until the mid-19th century that domestic writers began to
play down Thanksgiving's religious emphasis and invest the holiday
with familiar culinary values.
If you read the [8]original account of the first Pilgrim Thanksgiving,
you can see that McWilliams is wrong: there is �evidence to support
the holiday's early association with food,� in particular, �foods
native to North America.�
We set the last spring some twenty acres of Indian corn, and sowed
some six acres of barley and peas, and according to the manner of
the Indians, we manured our ground with herrings or rather shads
[[9]here Winslow apparently means alewives], which we have in great
abundance, and take with great ease at our doors. Our corn did
prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian
corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the
gathering, for we feared they were too late sown, they came up very
well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom.
Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling,
that so we might after have a special manner rejoice together after
we had gathered the fruit 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
among 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.
Winlow�s [10]letter goes on to describe some of their other foods,
many of which may well have been served at the first Thanksgiving:
I never in my life remember a more seasonable year than we have
here enjoyed; and if we have once but kine [cattle], horses, and
sheep, I make no question but men might live as contented here as
in any part of the world. For fish and fowl, we have great
abundance; fresh cod in the summer is but coarse meat with us; our
bay is full of lobsters all the summer and affordeth variety of
other fish; in September we can take a hogshead of eels in a night,
with small labor, and can dig them out of their beds all the
winter; we have mussels and othus at our doors: oysters we have
none near, but we can have them brought by the Indians when we
will; all the spring-time the earth sendeth forth naturally very
good sallet [salad] herbs: here are grapes, white and red, and very
sweet and strong also. Strawberries, gooseberries, raspas
[raspberries], etc. Plums of three sorts, with black and red, being
almost as good as a damson: abundance of roses, white, red, and
damask; single, but very sweet indeed.
We know that venison and fowl were served, both of the native American
variety. We know that turkeys were plentiful in the early days, though
we don�t know whether they were among the fowl served at the 1621
Thanksgiving. Since the holiday celebrated and followed the �fruit of
our labors,� the account implies that wheat (corn), Indian corn, and
barley were served in some form. Squash is reputed common in the area
at the time, but I believe that there were few mentions of it in early
years of the Plymouth Colony, so a relative of a pumpkin may not have
been served at the 1621 Thanksgiving. Given Winslow�s account of the
Pilgrim�s diet, probably grapes, berries, or plums were served, and
fish was probably served as well. As to cranberries, it is thought
that Native Americans in the area were familiar with them, but since
there is [11]no mention of them, there is no reason to suppose that
they were brought to the feast.
McWilliams goes on:
The earthy victuals that Thanksgiving revisionists arranged on the
Pilgrims' fictional table were foods that Pilgrims . . . would have
rather avoided. . . . English migrants recoiled upon discovering
that the native inhabitants hunted their game, grew their grain
haphazardly and foraged for fruit and vegetables. Squash, corn,
turkey and ripe cranberries might have tasted perfectly fine to the
English settlers. But that was beside the point. What really
mattered was that the English deemed the native manner of acquiring
these goods nothing short of barbaric. Indeed, the colonists saw it
as the essence of savagery.
From the colonists' perspective, Native Americans grew crops in an
entirely corrupt manner. They typically prepared fields by setting
fire to the underbrush and girdling surrounding trees. Afterward,
they planted corn, gourds and beans willy-nilly across charred
ground, possibly throwing in fish as fertilizer. . . . But the
English, blinded by tradition, never got it - they just looked on
in horror.
. . . And those fish! Why not salt them down and export them to
Europe for a tidy profit? What was wrong with these people? The
collective English answer - "everything" - honed the colonists'
distaste for foods, especially corn and squash, that they quickly
judged best for farm animals.
A similar culinary misunderstanding developed over meat. To be
sure, the English frequently hunted for their meals. But hunting
was preferably a sport. When the English farmer chased game to feed
his family, he did so with pangs of shame. To resort to the hunt
was, after all, indicative of agricultural failure, poor planning
and laziness. Thus the colonists reacted with extreme disapproval
when they saw Indian men adorned with paint disappearing into the
woods for weeks at a time to track down protein. . . . The elk,
bear, raccoon, possum and indeed the wild turkeys that the men
hauled back to the village were, for all these reasons, tainted
goods reflective of multiple agricultural perversions.
McWilliams offers absolutely no evidence for this supposed Pilgrim
disgust with hunting. The accounts of the Pilgrim�s first years in the
colony are replete with pride over their use of guns. Winslow
describes how, at Massasoit�s request [12]he shot a duck at 120 paces,
and how, at the Native Americans� request, the Pilgrims [13]shot a
crow at 80 paces who had been damaging the Native Americans� crops.
And the idea that the Pilgrims were hesitant to plant alewives with
their corn is nonsense, directly contradicted in Winslow�s letter (as
quoted above). The idea that the Pilgrims would have thought it was
feasible to export tiny alewives to England rather than plant them to
fertilize their corn is just plain ludicrous.
McWilliams stumbles on toward his conclusion:
And under the circumstances no status-minded English colonist would
have possibly highlighted his adherence to native American victuals
-- even if the early Thanksgiving holiday had been a genuine
culinary event.
As we have seen, contrary to McWilliams�s claims, Winslow, later
governor of the colony, �highlighted his adherence to native American
victuals� and their first Thanksgiving holiday was �a genuine culinary
event.�
In researching this post, the only other blogger to have noticed that
something was amiss in McWilliams�s account was Clayton Cramer, who
[14]noted some of the nonsense about guns.
So if you want to read about the experiences of the early Pilgrims,
I�d recommend skipping the New York Times op-ed page and the 1767
source cited in the Times as a description of 1621 Pilgrim life (but
which actually discusses the foods favored by poor Irish settlers in
western Carolina in the 1760s). Read instead the original sources
published in the 1620s, such as [15]Mourt�s Relation and Edward
Winslow�s [16]Good Newes.
Happy Thanksgiving!
References
Visible links
1. http://volokh.com/posts/1101406398.shtml
2.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/24/opinion/24mcwilliams.html?ex=1290488400&en=cebb5beccf240954&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
3.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/24/opinion/24mcwilliams.html?ex=1290488400&en=cebb5beccf240954&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
4. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/albion/afood.html
5. http://www.foodreference.com/html/html/yearonlytimeline.html
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coffee
7. http://members.aol.com/calebj/mourt6.html
8. http://members.aol.com/calebj/mourt6.html
9.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:sv73cCBdtFUJ:www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/61.4/vickers.html+fish+shads+pilgrims&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
10. http://members.aol.com/calebj/mourt6.html
11. http://www.library.wisc.edu/guides/agnic/cranberry/faq.htm
12. http://etext.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/goodnews4.html
13. http://etext.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/mourt2.html
14.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2005_11_27_archive.html#113319952132962326
15. http://etext.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/mourt1.html
16. http://members.aol.com/calebj/good_newes.html
Hidden links:
17. http://members.aol.com/calebj/mourt6.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
