Since good historically accurate television docu-dramas, and their value as a means and instrument to enlighten a public illiterate on early American history, are on my mind today, here's one that I saw on the History Channel, Thanksgiving 2006. This particular documentary is based on the only reliable source available on the history of the founders of Plymouth Colony, Governor Bradford's own history "Of Plymouth Plantation."
I read Governor Bradford's history many years ago, so I was well prepared to identify any blatant historical inaccuracies that might be contained in the movie. It's been two years since I saw it so my recollection may be a bit skewed, but the overall impression that I formed of the movie at the time, as I recall, was very positive, and I've retained that sense to this day. Indeed, I looked for it last year at Thanksgiving on the History Channel, eager to see it again, but to no avail. I think this year, rather than count on a replay on the History Channel, I'll just purchase a DVD copy and let that be that.
Who says tv isn't a useful educational tool?
Anyway, here is one short review of the movie posted on the Amazon page linked above:
J.S. Kaminski writes:
Most Americans know the story of the Pilgrims and Mayflower...or do they? The History Channel has done a great job here, showing us that there is more to the story than we'd been taught. For example, who knew that many of the Pilgrims had actually moved to the Netherlands for an extended period (12 years or so) before deciding to try their luck in the New World? Or that there were actually two ships (the other being called The Speedwell), but the 2nd one was left behind because it was deemed un-seaworthy? Or that the Pilgrims landed first, not at Plymouth, but on Cape Cod, only to be driven off by the Native Americans there? These facts and many others are revealed in this interesting film.
Well, had you read the book, Mr. Kaminski, you would have known some of these otherwise obscure facts about the Pilgrims. LOL
Nah, Mr. Kaminski is right that these facts are not widely known today, and he's also right, if memory serves, that these facts among others spoken of in Bradford's history, such as the use of a "great iron screw" to repair a damaged main beam in the ship, are brought out in the movie. My only real beef with the docu-drama is that I personally feel that too much effort was expended in giving the ancestors of the natives an angry voice by which to demonize the Pilgrims. There are some very angry Indians out there, but that side of the story has been told for ... how long now? Hopefully the movie will lead people like Mr. Kaminski to read the book?
I don't recall the exact context so it would be hard for me to find the link, but we had a discussion a few years ago over at the AFB in which a couple of us were challenged by someone for "making the story of the Pilgrims out to be a "religious fairytale"", or something to that effect. I replied by pointing out to our opponent that the story of the Pilgrims -- Bradford's history of Plymouth Plantation -- which I had read several times sort of reads like one; that he ought to read it sometime and he would know exactly why our impression of the Pilgrims is what it is -- a religious fairytale if that's what you want to call it. The movie in question, again as I recall from seeing it two years ago, following Bradford's history closely, has the same basic effect. I highly recommend it for those who have yet to read or hear or see anything other than revisionist histories of our Pilgrim ancestors.
Addendum:
I thought that some of you may be unaware of this bit of historical 'trivia' related to Bradford's manuscript, and that you might be interested. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the subject which relates the basic facts of the manuscript's century-long disappearance from the American continent, how it was discovered and returned:
History of the manuscript
After Prince's death, the manuscript was left in the tower of the Old South Meeting House in Boston. During the Revolutionary War, British troops occupied the church and the manuscript was lost for another century. After quotes from the missing book appeared in Samuel Wilberforce's A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, in the 1850s it was discovered in the Bishop of London's library at Fulham Palace,[2] and was published in print in 1856. Formal proposals to return the manuscript were not successful until the 1897 initiative of the Hon. George Hoar, United States Senator from Massachusetts, supported by the Pilgrim Society, the American Antiquarian Society, and the New England Society of New York.
When Bishop of London Frederick Temple learned of the importance of the book, he thought it should be returned but because it was being held by the Church that approval from the Archbishop of Canterbury was needed. By the time the formal request from Hoar's group reached England, the Archbishop was Frederick Temple. The bishop's Consistorial and Episcopal Court of London observed that although how the book got there was not known, the marriage and birth registry in the back of the book should have been deposited with the Church, that this library was the proper place for it, thus the book was a church document and the Diocese of London had proper control of it. The court went on to observe that when the Colony declared independence in 1776, the Diocese of London was no longer the proper place because London's registry was no longer the proper repository for such a registry. The bishop's court ordered that a photographic copy of the document be made for the court, and the original be delivered to the Governor of Massachusetts.
3 comments:
I had not heard of this, Terry, and it is interesting. There was a link to this e-book at the end of the Wiki:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tYecOAN1cwwC&printsec=titlepage#PPA51,M1
I now just need some time to be able to read it. It does seem as if it would be very interesting, even if somewhat difficult to read. It makes one wonder, too, what has been left out.
Flanders,
Thanks very much for making me aware of the e-book. I had overlooked that. I may put up a permanent link to it under my "links of interest" section.
The Old English is indeed difficult to read while you're adjusting to it. But if you like a challenge, it can be fun and interesting too. And like anything else, it gets easier with practice. But it's very helpful when you're studying primary source materials like, for instance, "New England's Firstfruits".
I think the book I linked to at Amazon is written in modern English, but I'd have to doublecheck that.
Thanks again. I really appreciate your pointing out the e-book!
And all this time I thought Seneca was an Indian name and Tribe.
I have read this folklore also of this first Thanksgiving day and used to believe and celebrate...but no more.
A feast that took place on and unremembered date, sometime in the autumn of l62l, they celecbrated a three-day harvest feast with the native Wampanoag people, whithout who they would not have survived the winter of l620.
This is another ariticle that I have read:
"From what I read William Bradford, whose journal is considered the most complete account of the early settlement, never mentions such an event. The source of the story seems to have originated from a letter by Edward Winslow written December , l62l and published in Mourt's Relation. He describes the above and it happens in the fall 0f l62l. The Pilgrims had survived their first winter, and were now reaping their first harvest with extensive assistance from the Wampanoag men at a three-day feast at which the Pilgrims displayed their military firepower. There is no mention of the Pilgrims' giving thanks to either the Creator or the Wampanoags. without whom they would have surely starved.
Although not associated with that early feast, there is another thanksgiving that took place following the war against the Pequots in l637. The most dramatic incident in that war was the slaughter of 700 Pequot men, women and children at Fort Mystic, most of whom were burned alive. In his Brief History of the Pequot War, John Mason, who war a participant and was asked by the General Court of Connecticut to write an eyewitness account wrote:
"THUS WE MAY SEE HOW THE FACE OF GOD IS SET AGAINST THEM THAT DO EVIL, TO CUT OFF THE REMEMBRANCE OF THEM FROM THE EARTH....LET THE WHOLE EARTH BE FILLED WITH [GOD'S] GLORY..THUS THE LORD WAS PLEASED TO SMITE OUR ENEMIES IN THE HINDER PARTS, AND TO GIVE US THEIR LAND FOR AN INHERITANCE.
Historian Alfred Cave notes that John Underhill"rejoiced that through God's will "their country is fully subjued and fallen into the hand of the English" and called on readers to "magify his honor for his great goodness"
In the opinion of a lot of Native Americans, this is the only THANKSGIVING THESE IMMIGRANTS WERE GIVING THANKS FOR...THEIR SLAUGHTER OF THE PEOPLE THAT GREETED THEM WITH OPEN ARMS.
After reading all this my good fellows, how would I come to the conclusion that a lot was not left out of the "Desperate Crossing:untold story of the Mayflower".
This was after the Natives greeted the newcomers from England, after arriving here from fleeing oppression from the Church of Enland.
A good read but sad, if you can find it is "THE THANKSGIVING EPIDEMIC" Kathy Kerner.
Its been engrained in us that Thanksgiving is a celebration...of a sit down feast between the Native and the Puritan, it will be hard to stay away from Wal-Mart to buy that Turkey after all these years...but the truth still needs to be told.. we just need to celebrate that some of the East Coast Native Americans did survive.
Lot of misinformation out there...we just have to read and decifer the truth from the myths.
Post a Comment