Thanks for your clarification. I can readily agree with any description that does not assert intent without evidence, let alone imply a nefarious motive.

Perhaps Michael Gannon’s research *might* be considered a borderline “conspiracy theory”, but I would suggest if Mark D. (or anyone else) wants to argue that point, he should go read Gannon’s research first.

I personally think a lot of what passes for “cultural theory” in today’s academic marketplace borders the “conspiracy theory” level, but that’s only due to Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is crap. The real trick is to figure out which is the 10% that might be worthwhile. But in that case, we’re getting into a metadiscussion and are far afield of the initial discussion.

Sorry if I contributed to a threadjack.

I think “benign neglect” is a prime example of “ostracism, censorship, and suppression.”

[Admin. note]: Mark D., you are dangerously close to officially threadjacking David’s post. Please stay on topic, address the relevant questions, and keep insults to an extreme minimum. Thanks.

That word (and the sentence it was used in) was simply refering to some of the arguments that I’ve heard on this topic that are contingent on this simple narrative: “The Pilgrim story of 1621 is clearly at the cultural root of our tradition.” This narrative is based on several assumptions that need to be unpacked concerning “cultural root,” “our,” and “tradition.” I read that as saying that there is only one “cultural root”, only one group of like-minded people included in “our,” and only one legitimate tradition, thereby placing all other voices in the realm of the illegitimate. I don’t think that this is in every case a conscious, or to use your word, malicious, act, but it is built into the discourse that some Anglo Americans use to discuss these things. Perhaps I should have used “exclude” (which I’m using here with a broad connotation that includes unreflective action) rather than “silence” and we could have avoided this little excitement.

Didn’t you say this: “Absent explicit evidence, that is positively ridiculous” about David’s post? Were you not being condescending there? So, who is being self righteous now?

Unjustified assumptions? Have you bothered to analyze history at a level of understanding why things happened? Apparently not. None of my assumptions is unjustified. If anything, I have made assumptions on events that have happened many times.

Suppositions, yeah, I bet you have hard evidence of everything you state in blogs where history is being analyzed. In fact, you are the one who has made the most absurd suppositions here.

“Ignoratio elenchi” … if you think what I am saying is a fallacy or an irrelevant conclusion, then why do you get so worked up? And, why haven’t you been able to at least bring some valid argument against my position instead of just dismissing it as irrelevant?

I have argued specific points of your POSTS not your mind. I am not arguing against my own imagination (my imagination and my sense of self are very much in tune). Could it be the other way around? Maybe you are imagining too much?

I think you are a bit worked up now; and, in a position that nobody can be right except you. A position that nobody’s arguments can be relevant except yours. So frankly, I think this has become pointless.

You are being extremely condescending here. Your comments are saturated with self righteousness, unjustified assumptions, suppositions, and ignoratio elenchi. You keep speaking as if you can read my mind and then you proceed to argue against your own imagination. 95% of what you have said is completely irrelevant. If that makes you feel like you are the winner, go for it.

The fact that the powerful narrate history and therefore decide what is stated and what is suppressed is not a distraction to this discussion, but rather an important idea that has to be given consideration when studying history. Failing to do so creates the closed mindedness that you are reflecting on your posts.

I don’t believe the post was ever intended to bring evidence that someone is trying to ostracize someone else. I believe the post is in part trying to promote thought about the different roots of the Thanksgiving tradition and how the memory would develop given the demographics of the nation.

The fact that suppression of some ideas is a historical reality is a red herring. No evidence has been offered that anyone (let alone the American populace at large) has been silencing, censoring, suppressing, or ostracizing alternative Thanksgiving traditions or those who promote them.

While I do not believe David Grua is talking about any conspiracy in his post (since he has stated so himself and since others seem to agree that he wasn’t alluding to a conspiracy), I don’t think he would be wrong even if he was.

One of the definitions of silence that you posted is the word suppress.

One of the definitions for the word suppress in the Merriam Webster Dictionary is the following:

“to keep from public knowledge: as a: to keep secret b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of ”

This type of silencing has occurred numberless times in every civilization. It has been done by those who hold the power in a given society. In the USA, Anglo Americans have certainly done it numberless times. To be in denial of this seems ludicrous to me. Even Church Authorities have exercised this type of suppression. To conclude that such suppression is always with an “evil purpose” in mind is wrong.

I think you need to wake up and accept a reality of life. Historians are not going to turn a blind eye to this real fact when they analyze history.

“Silence” as used here is a transitive action verb. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:

To make silent or bring to silence: silenced the crowd with a gesture.
To curtail the expression of; suppress: silencing all criticism; silenced their opponents.

One cannot silence someone else through benign neglect. Silencing is about ostracism, censorship, and suppression. The theory that Americans silence other Thanksgiving traditions is a classic conspiracy theory – conspiracy, as in sharing the same spirit, or “a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose”.