It rates about a 8 (out of 10) on the baloney meter. The feast in the fall of 1621 is what everybody means by "the first Thanksgiving". There was no formal holiday, which is largely an 19-20th century product. The Puritans had "days of thanksgiving" at irregular times and for special reasons ("victory over the heathens" would certain be a reason, but it was far from the only one; more usually, they were to celebrate of the mere fact of surviving a particularly bad time.). To say that the accidental spread of smallpox to the Native Americans, or the events of the Pequot War have anything to do with "the first Thanksgiving" is simply false to facts.
The historical facts given are broadly correct, though hardly given in what you would call an unbiased, scholarly way. For instance, it doesn't tell you that the Narragansett and Mohegans sided with the colonists against the Pequots. The whole thing was a mess, and trying to make it us vs. them is simplistic.
I live near the sites of most of these events and we know it was all pretty tragic. The Patuxet were indeed wiped out by smallpox, and the Pequots almost eliminated in the conflicts with their enemies, both European and Native (I'm not at all sure about that thing with the soccer balls,
![Shocked :o](http://newagefraud.org/smf/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
) Most of the details given here, though, are incorrect. The "unarmed" Pequots were in a pallisade, not a longhouse, and cannot have been celebrating the Corn Dance, because the battle took place in May. The reason the fort was undefended, is that the Pequot warriors were off attacking Hartford. The force that attacked Mystic (not Groton) included Narragansett, Mohegan, and Niantic allies of the colonists, although they were horrified by the brutality of the white soldiers and wouldn't aid them again afterwards. The fighting went on for a while longer, from Long Island to New York, and finally ended when the Mohawks, knowing which side their bread was buttered on, killed the Pequot leader and his followers, who had come to them for refuge, to appease the colonists. Again, it was hardly an "us vs. them" scenario, although the colonists, all in all, do come out looking the worst.
The idea that George Washington established a single "Thanksgiving Day" to celebrate all the massacres of Indians, instead of celebrating them individually, pretty much speaks for itself, and it says "don't know what I'm talking about". The exact words of his proclamation is well-known and strangely lacks any reference at all to the Indians; it does in fact offer " our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions".
The so-called Great Sioux Uprising began in 1862, with the Sioux rising up against the Army and white settlers in an act which was, in their own view, a matter of survival--starvation was definitely a possibility for them, but to call them "starving Indians", implying some kind of helplessness, is both condescending and prejudicial. The Army fought back, as a matter of course; Lincoln himself had no part in the matter, other than that, of course, he was technically commander-in-chief of the Army. This account confuses the Army marching on the Sioux during the uprising, with Lincoln's involvement in the execution of 300 prisoners of war. They had been condemned in a kangaroo court, but had to right to appeal to the President for clemency. Lincoln considered it a difficult decision, but ultimately upheld the conviction of 38 of them, two for "violation of women" and the rest for being " proven to have participated in
massacres, as distinguished from participation in
battles". This decision came on December 6, 1862; his proclamation of Thanksgiving Day was given on October 3, 1863. If there's a connection here, I certainly don't see it.
Thanksgiving Day as we know it was established in 1941, deliberately tied into the Christmas shopping season (which, hard as it is to believe today, was usually between Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Eve
![Cheesy :D](http://newagefraud.org/smf/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
) It's a secular celebration of family values and all the important food products which were previously unknown in Europe (turkey, potatoes, tomatoes, squash, etc.) It has nothing to do directly with Indians at all--the symbolism has to do with uniting European and Native American cultures to produce a uniquely American one. Far from celebrating massacres or victories over the Natives, it commemorates one of the very few times that everyone in colonial times cooperated and shared with each other, which is probably why we only have
one day of thanksgiving these days.
So, all in all, I would definitely label this account as "propaganda" rather than "information"
Here are a few links for more information:
Full text of George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving proclamation, from the Library of Congress:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.htmlTimeline of the Pequot War, from Columbia University:
http://bc.barnard.columbia.edu/~rmccaugh/earlyAC/pequottl.htmAn account of the Great Sioux Uprising, and Lincoln's involvement in it, from History Net:
http://tinyurl.com/ycl6b27