Part 1.

I personally feel that the first reading, “The Pilgrims and America’s First Thanksgiving” accurately represents how I was originally taught about thanksgiving in elementary school. We were taught that everything that happened between the two different groups were peaceful and that the Indians and the white men shared among each other.  “First  Thanksgiving” has the closest resemblance to how think of what Thanksgiving is. My parents explained to me, long before school ever did, that the way we were taught about Thanksgiving doesn’t mean it’s the truth. They also taught me though was that the peace didn’t last very long and soon after it became an incredibly down hill slippery slope for the Native Americans and it cost them their land and lives.  In school they teach it a lot more happy and that everything was fine between both groups of people, though that wasn’t the case. My understanding of Thanksgiving has changed because the public education system sometimes feeds the masses corrupt information that doesn’t necessarily include the whole truth. I think about the age of thirteen I realized that a lot of what I’m being taught in school has another side of the story, not just what I’m being told.

Part 2.

I do think that the different approaches to Thanksgiving are a little intriguing. I could tell from some of the “part 1” articles that some people might focus on the idea that everyone was lazy and didn’t want to work. I’m not saying that isn’t how it went, I’m just saying that people like to focus on what they want to see rather than what might have caused that to happen. I don’t find any of them that make a compelling case enough for me to change my opinions on Thanksgiving all together. Everything has a bias, and it’s really hard to find a reliable source that doesn’t have a hand in it, no matter if it’s a conscious decision or not. I think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot, who right along side trump, should close their mouths for the sake of the Republican party. I have not read the books he did, so I can’t argue with his statements in his article, but I personally do have the belief that Native Americans have been constantly taken advantage of and run out of their land. I do not believe that they have been given a fair shake, as he claims. I don’t think that even knowing who the authors were influenced how I viewed the articles, I think that since it’s easy to see the author’s voice in the articles they write, it’s fairly easy to make a judgement on who they are. I think once you are able to see the biased in an article it already makes it unreliable, even if it’s the truth.

Part 3.

I do find these articles much more interesting than in part 2. I think that they offer many different views, not just the economic stand point, or the views that a lot of my peers have. When a party presents different information it’s a lot more interesting. I think that looking at it from a teacher’s perspective, or a Native American, or even a historian adds something to the discussion. It isn’t just focused on one sides belief system and debating that over and over. I do find them compelling, but I don’t think any one in particular changed my mind. I think that every article brings something else to the table, I can agree the most with the teacher. My Grandpa is from a reservation, and he’s told me stories about how rough it was growing up coming from a place of nothing. I’ve heard countless stories, and it amazes me that the general public doesn’t recognize the atrocities that have occurred prior, and are continuing to occur. One of the authors is obviously a teacher, I couldn’t find his name. Another author is a Native American who passed here recently, who basically was a scholar on when the English came to America. The New York times article was written by a conservative hating journalist. I do not think knowing any of these authors influences how their piece reach their audience. I think that since we were able to read them first, and evaluate what is included, it has helped us take a step away from the authors.

Part 4.

I think a historian would make sense of the “First Thanksgiving” by not adding any opinion to their conclusion. I think that in order to come to a logical conclusion they must be passionate about the work that they are doing and dive completely into their work. I think that the steps that need to be taken in order to find the answer would to look at everyone’s viewpoint and maybe write about it from different perspectives. I don’t think there is ever going to be a point where we agree that the people who came to America were horrible and doing the wrong thing, nor were the Native Americans. I think that the truth has many different meanings, and especially for different people. I think that the whole idea behind Thanksgiving needs to be evaluated, and we need to maybe focus less on doing things because it’s “Tradition” and more because it’s right or not. I think that a person 18-30 should be mature enough to have open discussions with their friends, family, loved ones, people on the internet. I don’t think they need to come to a conclusion, but I do think that they at least need to acknowledge the different information and the different places it’s coming from in the articles. I think people determine what is most compelling by what they don’t know. If something has just been introduced to them, and it makes them look at a situation in a whole different light, I think that’s how most people determine if it’s most compelling. I think the first place I would look for a reliable source would probably be in the BSU Library database, and I would do the CRAAP test to determine if it was worthy of me looking at it or not.