Puritans on their way to church.
It's become sort of an odd tradition in the US in recent years to either criticize a holiday in general or to lament how weakened its become in the modern observance of it. The two are diametrically opposed feelings of course, but they seem to be equally present.
In regard to Thanksgiving, the trend has been by some to comment on how we just don't grasp how the very first Thanksgiving is misunderstood. This commentary takes the form of the mild, in noting that the Mayflower immigrants and their Indian guests were just as likely to have had deer on the table as they were to have turkey (although there's frankly no reason not to suppose they had turkey. . . or maybe goose), to hardcore comments on their being nasty colonialist. The commentary on the early menu is historically interesting but latent prejudging of their overall natures is seemingly rarely done accurately and opens up moderns to criticism as well.
Of course, this website itself hasn't been immune to that as we've noted more than once that the "first Thanksgiving" wasn't that. Thanksgiving feasts are common feature of every society that farms, which means almost every society. Those feasts are, it should be noted, uniformly religious in nature.
We noted all of that in our first posts here, in 2012, that dealt with the holiday:
When we were kids were taught, back in the old days, that the holiday was thought up by the Pilgrims, those Puritan colonist who landed at Plymouth Rock, as an original day, celebrated with their Indian neighbors, to give thanks for their first harvest. That's not really true. I'm sure it's true that they celebrated a Thanksgiving, but then they would have for a variety of reasons. The most significant of those would have been that a Thanksgiving was the European norm.
Thanksgiving was a universally recognized religious celebration recognized in every European country. The holiday gave thanks to God for the harvest. At some point in Europe the celebration came to be formally recognized in the Catholic Church, centered date wise around the harvest in southern Europe, by a few days of fasting prior to the Church recognized holiday. How the Reformation effected this I do not know, but I am certain that the Puritan colonists would have celebrated Thanksgiving in England and in Holland prior to every having celebrated it in the New World. Indeed, as is sometimes missed, not all of the Mayflower passengers were Puritans by any means, and this is no less true for the other passengers on that vessel. They all would have come from a relatively rural English background and they all would have been familiar with a Thanksgiving Day.
Thanksgiving remained a generally recognized religious based holiday in North America well before it was established as a national holiday in the United States, and in Canada (on a different day). In the United States, the first Federal recognition of the holiday came during the Civil War, during which time Abraham Lincoln sought fit to note it, in the context of the terrible national tragedy then ongoing. While that may seem odd to us now, there were real efforts even while the war was raging to try to fit what was occurring into context, which would eventually lead to Decoration Day and Memorial Day (essentially the same holiday). During the war, noting what was occurring on Thanksgiving seemed fitting. The holiday was seemingly moved around endlessly for many years, and even as late as Franklin Roosevelt's administration new dates for it were fixed, all generally in November. States got into the act too, such as Wyoming, with governors occasionally fixing the date. The current date stems from a 1941 statutory provision.
We also noted there, regarding its religious nature:
It's interesting to note that up until the mid 20th Century the norm was to take a turkey home alive, and dispatch it at home. This is rare now, as people have become somewhat delusional and wimpy about food, with some even going so far to believe that if they abstain from meat entirely, that they're not killing anything, a delusion which demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of any kind of farming or food transportation (more animals die smacked by trucks on the road than most can begin to imagine). That meant that the turkey was no doubt pretty darned fresh, as well as tasty.
What all of this tells us, as noted before, is that the observance of the holiday has been incredibly consistent for an extremely long time.
Efforts to formalize it as a national holiday, only dealt with in part, really came about during the Civil War and it was clear right from that time that effort, which built upon an already existing civil custom, were both familial in nature, tied to the harvest, and had an emphasis on giving thanks to God.
Indeed, on that latter point, Thanksgiving is one of those days like Christmas that frankly makes no sense whatsoever outside of a religious context. While I'm well aware that there are people who don't make it a religious observation and have the holiday anyhow, it seems weird and even hollow if they don't. I've been, for example, to Thanksgiving dinners in which no prayer of thanksgiving was done and they seem really lacking. And not only is something lacking, but it's obviously lacking. Be that as it may, in spite of feeling that way, I come across poorly as I never make a personal attempt to intervene and offer one. I say one to myself.
Anyhow, with this in mind it strikes me for an odd reason how this holiday, celebrated across the US and in every culture, is one that is really carried over from a distinctly Protestant tradition, and indeed a tradition within a tradition. I'll not go into it too deep, but its associated with the Puritans for a reason.
The "Pilgrims" as we used to hear them called more often, where Calvinist Puritans who had very distinct and strict religious views. They didn't practice religious tolerance whatsoever, although at that first English Thanksgiving in North America they no doubt had to as they were a religious minority at the time, something rarely noted about them.
Indeed, the English colonist who came over on the Mayflower were buy and large not Puritans, a religious sect that had grown up in the early English Reformation and which was hostile to the Church of England, with the Church of England being in turn hostile to it. The history of the early English Reformation is something we'll not deal with here, but we'll note that the early Church of England reflected a schism, rather than an outright separation, from the Catholic Church. The first Bishops and Priests of the Church of England had all been ordained as Catholic Priest and they all had Catholic theology as their primary view in spite of following Henry VIII into schism on the question of his claimed right to head the church. Indeed, it's really doubtful that many of them took his claims all that seriously, quite frankly, and the Church of England as a Protestant Church didn't really come about until some time later. Henry had advisers who were Protestant in their views right from the onset (at least one lost his head for heresy) and he had one wife, if I recall correctly, who was hardcore Protestant, so the door was open. But he no doubt went to his death in 1547 at age 55 thinking he was a Catholic.
After that the period of turmoil he'd unleashed in his country really ramped up and as we've addressed elsewhere the Elizabethan Religious Settlement ultimately came about through the imposition of certain views by Queen Elizabeth I. The degree to which she herself agreed with them is open to question, at least one unconformable story holds that she rejected her own clerics on her deathbed as being false clerics, but the settlement was only partially that. While England would become rabidly anti Catholic in later years, that would take years and years and it would have at least two Catholic monarchs after Elizabeth's death, thereby making her sister Mary not the last one.
Oliver Cromwell, Puritan Lord Protector.
One party that didn't accept the settlement was the Puritans. With no really definable origin, they came up originally as a party within the Church of England that was steadfastly opposed to all of its retained Catholic nature. Hitting their high water mark during the dictatorship of Puritan Oliver Cromwell, they fit in with the group of British Protestants who were darned near opposed to every sort of religious and even civil custom that the English had. That operated to make them really hated and when the Restoration came about not too surprisingly they were suppressed by an English population that was sick to death of them. That caused some to relocate to the Netherlands which had religious tolerance due to a religious split existing in that country between a Catholic and Protestant population, but even the Dutch grew sick of them pretty darned quickly.
Mary Dyer, Puritan evangelist, going off to execution in Boston in 1660.
And that caused them to relocate to North America. Or more properly, for some of them to undertake to do that.
As this isn't a history of the Puritans in North America, we'll basically stop their history there, other than to note that they became really unpopular in the colonies as well. So much so, that even some female Puritan evangelist were executed for returning to a colony from which they'd been earlier expelled.
Anyhow, all of that is noted for a simple reason.
The Puritans were amazing opposed to almost every form of human celebration as we'd recognize it. Religious holidays that were deeply ingrained in Christianity and which Protestant religions kept right on observing after the start of the Reformation were banned in Puritan regions, including all of England while the dictatorship was ongoing. Attendance at church on Sundays was compulsory and omission of attendance was punishable as a crime, but Christmas and Easter were banned and actually outlaws. Sports on Sunday, an English tradition, was also banned. Certain sorts of sports were completely banned. May Day was banned.
But Thanksgiving, a day of thanks for a bountiful harvest, never was. And that's really remarkable.
Thanksgiving was a feature of England's Catholic culture that survived the Reformation and continued to survive into the Puritan era. It seems to be the one pre Reformation religious observation they were okay with, perhaps because it was a custom, rather than a Canon.
So we now have a civil holiday in the United States with deep religious roots. A Catholic origin, but Protestantized, and proving resistant to real secularization.
With that noted, one thing that's interesting in addition to note is how its a Western tradition, by which we mean that came up in the Latin Rite of the Church as a cultural institution, but not in the Eastern one. And that really shows as its in November.
Having the holiday in October, which Canada does, would actually make just as much sense as having it in November. Maybe more sense actually. Most places have actually harvested by late October at the latest. When I used to have a large garden, which I continue to think I'll do again every year, I'd harvest anything not already harvested on the opening day of deer season, which is in early November.
In the West, the Christmas Season really opens up with Thanksgiving. Indeed, the setting of the holiday in its current calendar setting was partially influenced by the Christmas shopping seasons.
The time leading up to Christmas is, of course, advent. This year Advent starts on December 1.
In the west, Advent has become a time of celebratory anticipation of Christmas, and this custom is the case everywhere in the west. Advent also exists in the East, but the focus is really different.
Indeed, in the East, the forty days prior to Christmas is a second Lent featuring a Nativity Fast. For Byzantine and other Eastern Rite Catholics as well as the Orthodox that is going on right now.
The rigor of the fast varies by Rite and location and I'm not qualified to really comment on it. As I understand it, and I may not understand it correctly, in the U.S. the fast basically applies to Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Like other Eastern fasts, its more strict than the ones that have come to exist in the Latin Rite.
This expresses the view that "there is no feast without the fast", a quote that I'm sure others know the source of but which I do not. There is a lot to it. Father Michael O'Loughlin, of Catholic Stuff You Should Know fame, holds that the cycle of fasting and feasting puts things in order. And indeed it might.
Cycling back to Thanksgiving, the Puritans, in spite of their hostility to all things Catholic, and the nation, during the tragedy of the Civil War during which the holiday was first somewhat instituted as a national holiday, got that. Indeed, both Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, in taking steps to institutionalize it on the nation's civil calendar, got that as well. It's not an accident that all of those event took place during periods during which there was something equivalent to a vast national fast going on.
Something to consider.
