The Reality of Jamestown vs. the Illusion of Plymouth

The story of Thanksgiving in America is for all intensive purposes a lie. It began as a way to justify what was done to the Native Americans culture. It is crucial for people to know the truth about this piece of history so that some justice is brought to all of those who lost their lives simply because they were not English or Frenchmen. This essay will explain the truth about the Native Americans and how they interacted with the pilgrims and will include the details of Jamestown which was actually a place of settlement before Plymouth. The sources used in the creation of this essay were Top Ten Myths About Thanksgiving posted on the History News Network website, Deconstructing the Myths of the First Thanksgiving posted on the Oyate website, Lectures given in class by Daniel Viles, Google Images, The Earth Shall Weep written by James Wilson, and Merriam Websters Online Dictionary.

Every year Thanksgiving is celebrated as an American holiday. In schools children are taught of the pilgrims and the Indians and of the feast that they shared together including turkey and various other traditional foods. Pictures are passed out to the children, in which the pilgrim men and women are completely covered and dressed in all black. They had arrived on their gigantic boat, the Mayflower. The Mayflower landed on Plymouth rock. These pilgrims wear big buckles and tall hats. The Indians are nearly naked and wear tall hats with feathers stuck into the backs of them and have paint smeared on their faces. These two groups clash and combine together for this one feast. This is the perfect image of Thanksgiving. It is 100% historically accurate, is it not?

Actually, this image that has been so vividly painted for us for hundreds of years, is not even close to correct. The pilgrims were not the first English settlers. They did not solely wear all black or have large obscene buckles. In fact, the Mayflower didn't even land on Plymouth rock! That was a myth that was added on to the story as an extra detail by a 95 year old man named Thomas Faunce. The legend rests entirely within his testimony which he did not even begin to tell until almost a century after the Mayflower had landed. The Mayflower actually landed in Province-town The first Thanksgiving may not have even taken place in Plymouth at all! According to the Berkley Plantation in Virginia, the first Thanksgiving in America was held there. Every year they celebrate this event and try to reenact it as precisely as possible. There legend tells them that 38 English settlers were brought to the plantation in 1619 by means of their ship the Margret.

So how is it that this story came to be so jumbled? Is any of the story accurate and why do we so willingly accept the inaccurate pieces? James Wilson answers all of these questions in his book The Earth Shall Weep. There had actually been English settlers and traders in the area for two years before the Mayflower even landed. During that time the mortality rates for the Native Americans increased drastically. There were two main sites that Englishmen and women settled on. These are known as Jamestown and Plymouth. Jamestown is often overlooked historically today as school children are taught about only Plymouth and the good natured pilgrims. The pilgrims were of a small Protestant sect. under John Calvin. They had fled England to gain independence and the right to practice under their own religion. This is what is often told as the main story today. What is commonly overlooked is the near complete extinction of another race that this move caused.

"Many Native American communities lost 75 per cent or more of their members within just a few weeks, the kind of losses predicted for a nuclear holocaust, and certainly greater than those suffered at Hiroshima." Diseases had been brought over to the Native Americans by the tradesmen and settlers. It entirely annihilated their population. It was a blow that they would never be able to recover from. Even World War One only killed two percent of the British population in four years. Death on this large of a scale would be enough to permanently scar if not destroy any culture. Eventually the Native Americans began to deal with starvation and famine as well. Due to all of the disease the crops were not able to be planted and harvested as had previously been the way. There were very few farm hands that were still willing and able to help.

The Pilgrims new that the land that they were about to settle on was not uninhabited. By 1920 hundreds of tradesmen and English/Frenchmen of different sorts had been to the land. None of the people that had gone out in search of the land were ignorant to the fact that Native Americans were already present in the territory and had a claim on it. The culture that the Englishmen had come from had taught them that land that had not been "tamed" and was not under constant improvement and was wild. So this meant that it was theirs for the taking. In other words, they did not recognize Native Americans as farmers nor did they respect their culture and way of life. Though they did not believe that the land was properly taken they did try to live off of the supplies that seemed to appear from the culture that did not farm. The Englishmen demanded that the Native Americans give them their surpluses of corn so that they could survive. All the while still denying that the culture had any real value whatsoever.

It is told in the Americans traditional version of the Thanksgiving story that the Pilgrims provided the food for their "Indian friends". This is not so. It was actually the Native Americans of the Wampanoag tribe that supplied the food for the event. They brought five deer with them and allowed the Englishmen to join them in the feast. Part of the myth that is currently believed today is that at the feast there was turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, pie, and pop-corn. This is also not so. In truth they only had deer, possibly some wild fowl (most likely not turkey), mashed pumpkin, and possibly "nasaump" (dried corn pounded and boiled into a thick porridge). Potatoes did not end up in New England until the 18th century during trade and cranberries were to bitter for the people to eat and they had no sugars at the time to sweeten them with.

Though Thanksgiving is a joyful holiday time to get together for many American families it is simply nothing more than a time of mourning for others. It is a time that represents roughly 500 years of betrayal, much death, and famine. In truth Thanksgiving is really nothing to celebrate. It should be a time of mourning for all of the lives that were lost and a beautiful culture and its traditions. The depictions that still circle today do not do this culture any justice whatsoever with the exception of a few intelligent people such as James Wilson. Many people merely do not care enough to search to find the truth that resides behind the many lies. In a school in Seattle it has actually been banned that Thanksgiving should be celebrated. The local board of education declared that it was "insensitive" to their Native American population. The teachers have been required to teach the true story of Thanksgiving. Many people view it as robbing our culture of tradition but perhaps it is merely righting a wrong that has long be ensued on a culture that is nearly lost.

Pilgrims and Puritans are all too often mixed up in modern society. Neither of the two groups were alike other than that they both fled from England. Though they both left, only one of the two groups actually gave up on England entirely and that was the pilgrims. All along the Puritans held out hope that one day England would change and come to its senses. The Puritans did not even land in Plymouth until nearly a decade after the pilgrims. Some pilgrims came for religious reasons and others because they had heard tales of riches to be made and found but all of the Puritans came simply for religious freedom. The puritans viewed the pilgrims as a people whose actions were driven by a misguided hope for perfection rather than by a real view of the world.

The Pilgrims that came over on the Mayflower believed that their God had created and cleared this land for them. They refused to acknowledge that the Native Americans had any part of it or that they had any rights to the land. In fact some of the pilgrims even tried to convert the Native tribes over to their religion and many did follow. The Native Americans resolve towards the beliefs began to falter as they saw all of the people that they loved begin to slowly die off around them. They began to believe that perhaps they had done something to offend their gods and so perhaps it might be best to take on the religion of these strange Englishmen. Obviously whatever the Englishmen were doing had to be working for them because they just kept coming in by the boat load so perhaps there was more to their religion and belief system after all.

Often the people of Jamestown are left out of the traditional story's and the pilgrims are made out to be something that they are not. Pilgrims did not dress in all black with funny belt buckles and they did not come to the new land simply for religious purposes. Native Americans were not simply half naked people that spoke with trees. Both were very distinct cultures and one nearly drove the other into extinction. Perhaps the pilgrims and tradesmen did not intend to bring the diseases over to the Native tribes but regardless, they did. Then the people of Jamestown and the people of Plymouth all took of the Native Americans corn unfairly claiming that they had "found" it and they dug up Indian graves and stole from them. They terrorized a culture that was different from theirs and because it did not operate identically to their own they decided that it was not worthy of "their" ground. It was a truly awful time period. Yet though this was a time period of nothing more than death and lack of justice it is celebrated yearly in America and the children are brought up believing lies about the entire ordeal. In truth, it was horribly tragic and all America should acknowledge the truth of the matter. It is easy to see why people would want to believe that the forefathers of the country were simply acting upon their faithfulness to their high moral standards and that their cooperation with the Indians brought the nation to what it is today, but this is simply untrue. It is beyond time to recognize the matter for what it truly was. Any culture that bases its traditions around lies and prides itself on the make believes, is no culture at all.

Living in Cyclical Time vs. Linear Time

Native Americans lived in cyclical time whereas the rest of the world and all of its cultures lived in linear time. When most cultures progressed the Native American cultures continued to run in circles and even viewed themselves from a cyclical viewpoint. The resources used to create this paper were Merriam Webster Online Dictionary and Google Images.

The Native Americans lived in a much different time period than we do today. Even the Europeans that lived during their time did not live in quite the same way. Europeans viewed themselves in much the same way that we do today. We view ourselves in linear time. We are forever progressing and moving forward. Even our main religions are based in linear progressive time. The Native Americans viewed themselves in cyclical time. They were in an on-going circle and their life styles, technology and religion were all based around this view.

According to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, cyclical is defined as "of, relating to, or being a cycle; moving in cycles" and time is defined as "the point or period when something occurs". Linear is defined as "of or relating to a straight line". To live in cyclical time would be to view oneself in the midst of an on-going cycle that will just repeat day to day, week to week, and season to season. To live in linear time would be to view oneself as constantly moving forward towards an inevitable end and taking several stops along the way.

Living in linear time like the Europeans did and as is done today religion is progressive. One of the largest world religions is Christianity. In this religion you have a book called the Bible that is referred to by all that partake in this faith. The Bible begins with the book of Genesis and ends with Revelation. This walks its readers from the creation of the universe to its destruction. Along the way you have the story of the first man and woman, the flood story, and various others. The Bible consists of a total of 66 books.

The Native Americans had a religion that consisted of all of the organisms that lived in their environments with them. They had spiritual connections with certain trees and animals and many items of the sort. They had different ties to specific pieces of land. They had many cultural dances and other such traditions that revolved in their lifestyles with them.

As far as technological advances were concerned the Native Americans had a very different point of view than the Europeans. The Europeans could not get enough of the new technology. They loved the new discoveries and possibilities that were opening up to them daily. The Native Americans on the other hand were more of a content religion. They enjoyed relishing in their already preset ways of gathering food, hunting, dancing, and transportation. Both the Europeans and the Native Americans had all that they needed the difference between the two lied in their expectations and what each cultured wanted and thrived for. While the Europeans moved further in the direction of comfort the Indians were content in keeping peace. This in itself shows a clear distinction between living in cyclical time and living in linear time.

Today it can be observed that each parent wants for their child what they have already accomplished and then some. They want their child to strive for the best and fulfil their potential. The Native Americans were content with the idea of their children simply filling their own shoes. If their child could just live up to what they had accomplished than for the most part they would be okay. Due to the fact that they viewed themselves differently through time and space it is no wonder that they would have a different view on a contentment and what it truly stands for.

It could be observed today and in the European colonies that there were three tenses present in the English language. There is the past, present, and the future. In a Native American culture only the present tense existed. They placed no real value on anything that was to happen or had already happened only what was currently taking place. Most modern civilizations cannot wrap their heads around this idea. In order to do so one would first have to place them-self in cyclical time.

The differences between cyclical time and linear time are so profound that it is hard to fully understand both while living in one. Living in cyclical time entirely changes how a person would view not only them-self but those around them as well. If one was to place them-self within cyclical time it would be seemingly easy to see why the Native Americans felt no real need to integrate and continue to push their society forward and thrive. It is also easy to see why the Native Americans became completely obliterated by disease and the Europeans who brought the diseases. This is a concept that is commonly lost in the translation between the two entirely different concepts of time and space. Linear time vs. cyclical time not only changes a few minor things but entirely re-shapes a culture as a whole.

Ashley Nichols

essay question

What is the difference between the cyclical time and linear time? How did did living in cyclical time change how the indians viewed themselves and those around them?

Improvement or Deterioration?

For the last several centuries it has been the trend of Western History to "avoid dogma" and develope a "skeptical faith". "As long as the end justifies the means" is an age old saying. The question that this paper arises is does the end justify the means. The answer to this is no. People have avoided dogma and kept a skeptical faith for many years and we have merely regressed beyond where we started. The sources used for this paper was ReligiousTolerance.org, Merriam Webster, and The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

The world as a whole has been on a slow path of self destruction for at least the last four centuries, if not since the fall. With each passing year the world seems to fall apart just a little bit more. There are ambitious people that would disagree with this thesis. This is because it is true that we are better off scientifically today than we were a thousand years ago. We have had huge technological and medical advances. But is science really all that matters? Must we continue pushing until every human being alive has developed "a skeptical faith", and has learned to "avoid dogma". Are all of these technological developments, humanists, reformations, and revolutions helping to improve our world or are they simply holding us down?

The reformation that occurred in the 16th century greatly changed the course of history. Up until this time everyone had remained under the rule of the Roman Catholic Church. The government basically consisted of the church hierarchy and instead of taxes people payed a tithe to the church. This was just the natural order of things until Martin Luther came into the picture. He was a monk and then he later became a priest. He believed that the manner in which the church was going about its business was wrong and freely began to speak out against it. Instead of merely leaving the faith he decided to take it upon himself to try to alter some of the age old traditions. He wrote what is known as the 95 Theses. Basically this was a list of 95 things that he believed to be wrong within the Roman Catholic Church. At first many people disregarded him. It was as if he was saying here is a list of 95 things wrong with what I believe in. It could be compared to a modern day scientist with a PHD in bio-science technology publishing a book titled The 95 Things That I Do Wrong Every Day.

It seems as though Luther merely intended for people to clean up the ways of the Catholic Church. But instead of helping clean up this faith that he believed in, all that he managed to accomplish was driving people away from Christianity for good. Today because of him and other such humanists, our world stands divided. According to Religious-Tolerance.org as of the year 2000 Christians made up 33% of the worlds population. There are now a total of 19 major world religions that are divided into a total of 270 religious groups. There are roughly 34,000 Christian groups around the world. Instead of cleaning up one religion, all Martin Luther managed to do was take the first step towards dividing that one into 34,000.

The humanists way of thinking in the 16th century soon lead to the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. It was called the Age of Enlightenment because many people believed that it was a light shining in the darkness. These very same people soon found that this was not so and that it was truly quite the opposite. People believed that this was a time to expel the ignorance that had once been known and trust in science and equality. The most admired writer of the 18th century was Voltaire. He was feared in part because he used his writing to criticize all that he disagreed with. Voltaires biggest enemy was the church.

This time of enlightenment certainly lead to disruption but not the kind that these humanists had been hoping for. It turned into a time of mass murder during the French Revolution. The people in France found themselves dealing with starvation, terrible taxes (more than a 10% tithe), tons of suffering, and a group of upper-class people that did not care about what was happening and that were exempt from taxes.

The Industrial Revolution began about 1733. The ideas and thought processes that it began would continue on for several centuries. The revolution brought about the coming of factories, cotton-spinning machines, steam engines, sewing machines, steel plows, the reaper, and vulcanized rubber. All of these items ended up being extremely beneficial to the world but they came at a bit of a cost. It changed the way that people viewed themselves and the world around them and not necessarily in a good way.

Before the Industrial Revolution a person could be walking down a side street and meet another person and recognize them as a neighbor, fellow Christian, or just an acquaintance. Due to the Industrial Revolution the same person could be walking down the same side street but recognize the person as homeless, poor, or rich. Everything became about money and marketing titles and schemes. A persons self-value began to rapidly change too. Before the Industrial Revolution people independently made items from their homes and owned private businesses but after the revolution people worked mainly in groups or in factories. For example a man that had owned his own shoe business for twenty years would be pressured into working in a factory where he would only be allowed to stitch one small piece of the shoe together and for just half of the pay. The value of any given persons life began to go down but it was okay because it was in the name of science.

In chapter 29 of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations Landes is able to provide his reader with many things to ponder and many quotable quotes. For example on pg. 514 he states "We should want to know why, all of us, because the why may help us to understand today and anticipate tomorrow." So if we were to know why things have gone so badly in the past and why peoples self-worth and that of those around them have gone down, why so many people have ended up working in factories, and why so many people have died from starvation because of weak government ruling, than maybe we could understand what is occurring now and figure out what may happen in the near future. On pg. 517 Landes talks about the Thais and how they used to spend years on their religious rituals and traditions that were important to their culture but now they cut all of those short. Landes states "As a result, young men spiritualize for a few weeks-- time enough to learn some prayers and rituals and get back to the real, material world. Time, which everyone knows is money, has changed in relative value." Time, money, science, atheism, and technology may have increased in value but everything that used to be held close to people and was considered morally right has flown out the window and our world is suffering because of it.

Perhaps the best point the Landes makes in the entire book is on pg. 518 "Convergence is the watchword of the day, the promise of eventual equality, of the generalization of prosperity, health and happiness. That, at any rate, is what economic theory tells us, assuming mobility of the factors of production. Experience is another matter. The numbers for the small set of advanced industrial countries seem to confirm convergence, but individual countries do not always stay with the pack." This pretty much says it all. People keep striving for equality and perfection but as we have clearly witnessed in the past it is nearly impossible to achieve a world wide convergence of anything. All that we have managed to do is end up with less of a sense of belonging and individuality than what was known centuries ago. People engaged in the enlightenment period looking to gain individuality but in the end they have ended up with less than what they began with.

According to Merriam Webster the definition of revolution is "a sudden, radical, and complete change" or "A fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something." The definition of reformation is "the state of being reformed; the act of reforming." A revolution may mean change but it does not necessarily mean that it is change for the better and reformation may reform something but that does not necessarily mean that the object in question was not better off before it was reformed. There is much less acceptance in the reformed version of the world and a much lower level of tolerance. So what exactly was achieved? Or maybe an easier question to answer would be, what was lost? Perhaps the lesson of the past 600 years is that we should stop trying. Though it has been the trend of Western History to "avoid dogma", "cultivate a skeptical faith", and "listen and watch well", perhaps the world might just be better off if a new trend was started. Something to the effect of cultivating a skeptical science, looking towards dogma (as opposed to avoiding it), and learning to be content with what has already been achieved instead of pushing each other into the dirt to be the first to discover the next ipod touch. Though this is all as likely to occur as complete convergence. So perhaps a happy medium might be best. Maybe we will locate one before some suicidal humanist decides they have had enough and just blows up the earth. Maybe not.

Ashley Nichols

watch this to check out how far equality has really come

Mental or Physical?

The Industrial Revolution was not a material revolution in any sense of the word. It was a mental revolution that produced some material products and willing consumers. I will support this paper with quotes and pictures from Google , The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: by David S. Landes , Merriam Websters Online Dictionary , Wikipedia.com , Lucidcafe.com , Spartacus Educational.com , and The Great Idea Finder.com. It is important to know that though materialistic items may have come from the Industrial Revolution that the real cause of this revolution and every other for that matter lies within the mentality of the people in that era.

Often the Industrial Revolution is misconceived as merely being a material revolution. In actuality, the revolution truly occurred within the mindsets of the people. The Industrial Revolution introduced many new concepts into the world. These new concepts certainly did bring about new materials and resources but they did not just appear over night. They came about because society as a whole was ready to accept the new ideas and had the technology available to produce new objects and pieces of machinery.

The Industrial Revolution began about 1733. It is difficult to say precisely when the revolution ended because it was an age of enlightenment and the ideas and thought processes would continue on for several decades. Most historians state that it ended when Napoleon Bonaparte died in 1821. The revolution brought about the coming of factories, cotton-spinning machines, steam engines, sewing machines, steel plows, the reaper, and vulcanized rubber. It is because of all of these inventions that the average citizen is able to live in a better manner today.

Factories were considered to be a truly revolutionary concept in the 1700’s. People could make up to 12 times as many products in the same amount of time that it would have taken them to make one from their homes. Despite this, local citizens living in the towns where the new factories were being introduced despised the idea of them. The conditions within the factories were terrible. The areas that the people worked in were poorly ventilated, overcrowded, noisy, filthy, and poorly lighted. The people were right in objecting this “revolutionary” idea. However, before long the local citizens that resided in these towns began to cave in. This happened when James Hargreaves invented a device called the jenny. It could spin dozens of threads at once. Slowly people began to throw their precautions to the wind and they started embracing the idea of these factories in their cities and towns. For the sake of money and “enlightenment” they disregarded their preferences of working from home and the safety that it ensured. They forwent their aseptic needs so that they would not be left in the past century.

In 1768 James Watt found a way to make steam profitable. (pg. 188 The Wealth and Poverty of Nations ). Steam power became the greatest invention of the Industrial Revolution. The invention was soon applied to the factories and the transportation industries and caused the world to take a giant step forward. Though this was also the first step toward the total depletion of our ozone layer, most of the locals did very little to object this new idea. Most people saw this as a step in the right direction and as a tool that would make their daily lives easier. It was deemed acceptable by society and was therefore allowed to be born into the world. In truth, without the acceptance of the people it would have never amounted to anything.

The agricultural industry was completely redefined during the time of the Industrial Revolution. New tools were crafted from metal and replaced the wooden tools. Efficiency increased all around. The daily chores were able to be achieved at twice the previous speeds. Along with this came better insect and pest control, the discovery of new crops, the success of more crops, more breeding of livestock, and horses were used in place of oxen in the fields. Almost all of the agricultural industry quickly embraced these new concepts and made light of them. Their was the occasional traditional farmer that refused to envelope the new pieces of technology into their daily activities. However, there were not enough of these cases to change the rapid spread of technology. Most farmers were ready for a change.

Rubber was an accidental discovery that occurred in 1839. This discovery still lives on today and automobiles could not exist without it. A man named Charles Goodyear tried for years to put rubber to a positive use but discovered that when it was cold it was too hard to be useful and when it was hot it was wet. One day he accidentally mixed it with sulfur over a stove and discovered the perfect combination that made it flexible. It was one of the very first ways to develop elasticity. People initially had no real problems with rubber, it was seemingly harmless. That is until they were asked to drive vehicles that had rubber tires and an explosive material in the tank attached to it (gas).

All of these were truly revolutionary discoveries and inventions. Each and every one of these has impacted the society that is currently accepted today, but not one of them would have stood a chance if it was not for the acceptance of the general public. People have to be ready to accept change before it can occur. People often invent items when they begin to feel as though there is a need for that item in particular to grace society. If you want to kick off a revolution, you must first convince society that there is a need for one.

There is such a thing called the Hierarchy of Needs. This suggests that there are certain items that humans must have to live and that some are more prominent than others. At the bottom of the pyramid of needs lies the basic needs of life, air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, and sleep. Without these no form of life could survive. The next block up from the bottom entails the assurance of safety, including protection, security, order, law, limits, and stability. Without these basic needs no forms of life could survive for very long. The third block includes family, affection, and relationships. Many life forms would find it very hard to survive without the items included in this block. The next block up contains the needs for achievement, status, responsibility, and reputation. Most could live without these items but would prefer to have them. The block at the very top of the pyramid is composed of personal growth and fulfillment. Many forms of life would find it hard to live without these two things but would discover that it is certainly possible.

The Hierarchy of needs certainly shows a great deal of reason. But what could such a pyramid have to do with a time of enlightenment and revolution? The answer to this is, everything. This chart consists of all of the psychological and materialistic needs of people. Often times it can be found that people are willing to give up the top three blocks of the pyramid for fulfillment of the bottom two. People will easily latch on to a revolutionary idea if it means more accessible ways to fulfill their basic life needs. This is precisely what happened with the Industrial Revolution. People were willing to give up their social status and personal achievements and old ways of living if it meant easier means of achieving food, drink, and shelter. Society will never stop trying to find new ways to improve the basic necessities of life and each new way that is discovered could be considered revolutionary.

This is when revolutionary time periods become dangerous. People become more concerned with technology and their needs for personal achievement and the basic needs in life and they skip directly over their needs for affection and family. In times such as that of the Industrial Revolution people may even over look their own personal safety and that of others to achieve what they feel is necessary. However, since the beginning of time people have had ways of achieving all of the basic necessities included on the pyramid. The reason that we see so much growth within technology and disregard of personal safety and affection is due to the items in the top of the pyramid. Men and women start new trends for their own personal growth and fulfillment. Others begin to catch on to the idea when they become convinced that it is something that is needed to meet their basic necessities. A world with too much technology is a world without love and affection.

With a revolutionary time period comes a new way to identify ourselves and those around us. It affects people mentally in every sense of the word. Social relations can either flourish or meet their ultimate downfall. This can be observed throughout the Industrial Revolution. Before the new technological advances were introduced people identified themselves differently with one another. Walking down a side street one might meet a person and recognize them as a friend, neighbor, fellow Christian, or maybe even a lord or a lady. After the revolution struck people often began identifying themselves with others by marketing titles such as homeless, poor, or rich. Revolutionary time periods completely reshape a persons psyche.

When a revolution occurs everything slowly begins to change and reform itself. Many positive material items often come out of the era but with them comes people that view the world in a different manner. The people often identify with each other differently and find that new things are needed to meet their basic needs. If the people of an era are truly content than a revolution can not occur because the citizens will be unwilling to accept new ideas and concepts. Hence, it can be observed that the people of the Industrial Revolution believed that a change was necessary and so one came of the time period. Society will never accept any limit of technology as "enough" and so revolutionary time periods will continue to triumph over contentment until the end of time. Each period of time will be tied to the mentality of the citizens just as much as the last.

Ashley Nichols

The Grace Linn Memorial Methodist Church and the K.K.K.

Ashley Nichols

Ms. Lind and Mr. Viles

Honors 10

1/9, 1/10

Nichols

I. Introduction

A. The KKK in Maine is commonly misconceived as a hate group formed against African Americans. This is not so and this paper will accurately portray the KKK in the 1920’s and 30’s.

B. The Grace Linn Memorial Methodist Church and all of Maine in general was greatly impacted by the KKK in the 1920’s.

II. Grace Linn Memorial Methodist Church

A. Most people in the town have little or no knowledge of the Ku Klux Klan and their involvement with the church.

1. Interview with Clyde Emery

2. Interview with Wayne Libby

3. Book reference

B. Since the churches construction in 1884 the church has been in use.

1. Has been remodeled once due to a fire in the 1940’s

2. Two memorial windows donated to the church

3. Mrs. Grace Linn

III. The KKK in Maine

A. The KKK in Maine was mostly only present in the 1920’s

1. The KKK in Maine died out almost as quickly as it began

2. Was originally founded in Milo Maine

3. They threatened Maine citizens with burning crosses

B. First Parade of the K.K.K. took place in Milo Maine

1. The first day light parade in N. E. also took place in Milo Maine

2. 9/3/23

3. Maine’s chapter K.K.K. focused its abuse on Catholics.

IV. The KKK and the Church

A. The burning of the cross was actually for the church and not opposed to it.

1. Quotes

2. They burnt it to cleanse and purify their virtues

3. They in no way stood for the desecration of the cross; they merely meant to light it for the world to see

B. They saw themselves as helping to purify Gods work

1. The chapters of the Klan were Christian

2. Refer to themselves as the “Fraternal White Knights”

3. “If you have to ask, you’re not qualified to know.”

V. Conclusion

A. The Grace Linn Memorial Methodist Church and all of Maine in general was greatly impacted by the K.K.K. in the 1920’s.

B. summary of information provided

C. concluding strategy

Nichols 2

Ashley Nichols

Ms. Lind and Mr. Viles

Honors 10

12-18-07

The Grace Linn Memorial Methodist Church and the KKK

The Grace Linn Memorial Methodist Church and all of Maine in general was greatly impacted by the K.K.K. in the 1920’s. The K.K.K. that once resided in Maine in great numbers is often commonly misconceived as a hate group, formed solely against black people. However, this is not so and this paper will accurately portray the K.K.K. in all actuality.

The Grace Linn Memorial Methodist Church is in Hartland Maine. It resides on the corner of Commercial Street and is likely to attract the attention of all who stroll past it. The town of Hartland was incorporated in 1820 and it was not until 1884 that the church building was erected. This is still the same present day building that is standing today, with the addition of a full basement, kitchen, and interior. The interior was damaged in the early 1940’s by a rampant fire. The outer structure remains the same now as it was 187 years ago.

Before 1884 the congregation would conjoin every week in either Central Hall or the Academy. Many people would also attend the Baptist church in Hartland that had previously been founded and is also still in working order today. The Grace Linn Memorial Methodist Church was dedicated in memory of Mrs. Grace Linn who had formerly been a citizen of Hartland. Two of the more appealing features of the church would be the two stained glass memorial windows that reside in the building. The front window was donated to the church in memory of Mrs. Etta Barnes and the second is placed over the altar and was donated in memory of the wife of Dr. John Southworth.

The Methodist church was founded by the Ku Klux Klan in Hartland. The K.K.K. did not really begin to cause disruption until the 1920’s but groups existed well before then. Many people that attend this church or that live in the town of Hartland are unaware that the church was founded by this hate group. The local librarian, John Clark, stated that “K.K.K. artifacts have just recently been discovered above the town hall.” He then continued on to say that “we also have a bridge that is still to this day referred to as ‘Nigger Bridge’.” Mr. Clark has several copies of a book in the library entitled 1820 - Hartland Maine – 1970. In the book on page 35 a picture can be found of members of the KKK standing together outside of the church. The caption beneath the image reads, “Hartland’s Chapter K.K.K. about 1920.”

The K.K.K. was for the most part, only present in Maine during the 1920’s. The organization died out almost as quickly as it began. The group began in Milo Maine before spreading to other more remote areas of the state. The different chapters of the K.K.K. grew in vast numbers and before long they were terrorizing Maine citizens. They would threaten the locals with burning crosses. In most areas of the country the Ku Klux Klan was known for terrorizing African Americans but in Maine the focus of the group rested upon Catholics.

The first parade ever of the Ku Klux Klan took place in Milo Maine in 1920. On September 3^rd, 1923 the first ever daylight parade to occur in New England also took place in Milo. Klansmen and women from all over the state joined in the March. Appearances of the K.K.K. are usually well known, very few went unnoticed.

Many people find the Ku Klux Klan and their involvement with the church to be a controversial issue, as are many of the issues that the K.K.K. brings about. Often people assume members of the K.K.K. to be hypocritical. The largest reason for this is because the Klansmen and women claim to be Christians. But wait; are these not the very same people that are supposed to stand for equality? Why are they burning crosses?

To try to understand the reasoning behind this supposed hypocrisy it would be important for one to know that they in no way stood for the desecration of the cross. They saw burning the cross as merely lighting it on fire for the world to see. The cross was first burned in Scotland as a sign of opposition to tyranny and government and to show the peoples obedience to God. The K.K.K. adapted this symbol and proclaimed themselves to be the “Fraternal White Knights”. During the 1920’s the cross became widely known as the blazing spirit of Western Christian Civilization.

On a pro K.K.K. website the following quote was located. “By the fire of Cavalry’s cross we mean to cleanse and purify our virtues by burning out our vices from the fire of His word.” On a purely informational website it was stated that “The Klan says their fiery cross represents Christian ideals. They say they added the fire to signify that ‘Christ is the light of the world.’ As light drives away darkness and gloom so a knowledge of the truth dispels ignorance and superstition.

still have to do my conclusion which im holding off on until I can add in some perspective from my two interviews... I have two of them that I'll be adding in but I cant do them until Christmas vacation week.. other than that most of the stuff is here... except the work sourced and cited and I had some problems telling the difference between them but I'll have Miss. Lind help me with that.

God vs. Darwin

Since the beginning of time people have questioned how the world came about and how it works. Everyone wants to know the truth and the argument often comes down to science versus faith. But what if the foundation of truth is faith? Before one can truly decide where they stand on this it is important to accurately understand the meanings of these three words; truth, science, and faith. According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, truth is defined as "the property (as of a statement) of being in accordance with fact or reality". Science is defined as "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" and faith is defined as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

In many instances science and religion can work together quite well, for example; in the fields of medicine, much of astrology, botany, etc. One of the most common instances where we see a separation between science and religion is when we begin speaking of creation and how the world came to be. For this the vast majority of the world's population divides itself amongst two theories. The first is evolution (Darwin's theory) and the second is the Creation theory (also known as Intelligent Design). The problem is that both of these are simply theories and neither can be proven or disproven. A theory (according to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary) is "an unproved assumption".

The battle is commonly considered to be faith versus fact. I however, do not believe this to be true. I believe that both take a certain amount of faith, whether you are instilling your faith in a scientist or in an Intelligent Designer is irrelevant. Since neither theory can be proven both must be considered a system of beliefs. Some might argue that evolution cannot be a belief since there is no worship involved, but it is not necessary, just as you need not worship an Intelligent Designer to believe that one created the universe. Since both theories could be considered feasible I would hazard to state that in the instance of the creation of the world, the foundation of truth is faith.

What a person believes changes all of their worldly views. It can affect how they vote in an election, where they stand on world-wide issues, and even how they view history. For example, during the 1600's-1800's the Church underwent some changes that would have a permanent effect on religion all around the world. Up until this time the church had controlled all forms of government and was the center of all aspects of life in Europe. When scientists ("humanists") started to pop up and brought in new theories ("ideas") the Church tried to enforce laws against them. The Church simply did this to protect the lifestyle that they had all come to know as right and to keep a handle on rebellion. We see this with Galileo and Nicholas Copernicas. The general public viewed these matters as attempts made by the Church to keep them from discovering these new concepts.

Many people view this as a time of "enlightenment" and believe that science brought a light into what had formerly been the darkness. Many Christians however, would disagree with this statement and argue that what we had formerly had was a time of light and that these scientific "ideas" were just tiny seeds of darkness that were being planted within society. Unfourtunatly these seeds were only destined to grow larger.

Today America seems to be just the opposite of what Europe was during the "age of enlightenment". In Europe during that era, Catholicism was the main belief system and science had to undergo a major battle to survive from day to day. The tables have now turned. Today science is a system that is widely recognized and Christianity and other such religions must struggle to hold their own. We see this almost everywhere. Perhaps the most frightening place of all is in our public schools.

Most parents realize as they send their young children off to school that they will be subjected to some biased material in their science classes. However, those same parents are rather naive if they believe that it simply stops there. For example, if a parent were to further investigate their child's sophomore honors history class they might find several things alarming. The worst being extremely biased reading material, videos, and class discussions. As an additional example, parents may even find that copy's of Medici Money written by Tim Parks are just randomly passed out and chapters are assigned weekly. Tim Parks is a very biased writer with no fears of incorporating his own speculations and beliefs into his books. His book Medici Money is a sickeningly biased book and is in no way in favor of the Church. Parents may actually be forced to ask themselves "when did our Constitution begin working against our children's rights?"

An online video that discusses much of this and brings up some interesting controversy (though is biased in the favor of "science" and could easily be recommended by a history teacher as well) is called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/). From this (biased) video one could perhaps see the "science" portion of the argument in a well portrayed manor. One could also draw several conclusions as well as questions from it. In the video the narrator states "The fight culminated in 1987, when the Supreme Court decided that teaching Creationism in public school science classes violated the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution in the Establishment Clause which prevents the government from promoting or prohibiting any form of religion."

This is an interesting statement. What makes evolution a science as opposed to a belief? Can the Intelligent Design theory not be taught in the same manor? There is a difference between promoting a religion and promoting the education of a theory, that is very much a part of our modern society. Even so, the video later contradicts itself as it discusses a text book that was examined, that not only discusses Darwin's theory but the Intelligent Design theory as well. The book is called Of Pandas and People and the video states "But in the materials God is never mentioned, the designer is called an intelligent cause or an intelligent agent." Thus showing that it is simply a theory and singling out no religion in particular.

Perhaps, the most eye opening statement in the entire video is "Does science education have to be so narrow, so technical, so differential to existing paradigm that we can't even introduce students to what may be the next great theory?" As previously discussed teachers can cross over into a dangerous area if they try to incorporate their own beliefs into the lesson plan laid out by the state. This can cause general discomfort in the classroom for all children, regardless of their beliefs. Our public educators are largely influential people in the eyes of our young and unprotected children.

So is it that "the power and beliefs of the Church contradicted and in some cases censured emerging scientific discoveries." as stated by a 10th grade honors history teacher in an essay question? Or is that the emerging "scientific discoveries" contradicted the power and beliefs of the Church? Even our presidential candidates state whether they believe in evolution or Intelligent Design and it often plays a role in whether or not they are elected and which states they win the electoral votes for. So will our nation (or world for that matter) ever stop fighting over the differences between science and religion and the foundation of truth? It is highly unlikely. That is, unless our Intelligent Designer decides to take a mid afternoon stroll across the Earth and introduce Himself to each person that He passes or unless someone catches an ape magically "adapting" into a man on a video camera and posts it on YouTube (and maybe even Godtube).

Ashley Nichols