whats thanksgiving?

If you don't know how to cook, or can't or just don't want to.....lot's of places sell pre made Thanksgiving dinners.

:laugh: I bought a box of stuffing and some goodies. I'll be working part of the day and home alone the rest, so I figured why not pig out on my own!

Ooo is thanksgiving like Yule?
I mean its not strictly an english holiday.
But i celebrate it!

i thought this was a joke at first. i can't stop laughing.

Why? I wouldn't expect a non-American to know our holidays... especially considering how most Americans aren't aware of any other culture's holidays.

Really? We celebrate many of them here...

It always confused me too!
You have it like a week before xmas, and your suppose to have a massive turkey dinner aswell..
Is it just like an added celebration so that people have something to do with the left over turkey?

Is this serious?
Haha Its a whole month before Christmas! Not to mention, its all about giving thanks for what you have. Spending time with the people that you love. It is one of the major holidays in the US and we love it. Its all about friends, family, and food! There is nothing more fulfilling than sitting around the table with people that you love and sharing a meal. It really is beautiful ( I'm such a friggen sap).

But i thought that was the point of Xmas?
I mean thats all my family does on xmas as were not christians.

Christmas is about the birth of Christ. That alone is the sole purpose of Christmas. However, for those that are not Christians or do not believe in God, it is more of a time of giving...and I don't mean of gifts. Its a time to give back to those you love, help out in your community and just help others in need. Though both Thanksgiving and Christmas both have the idea of good will and love attached to it , they are different because one is traditionally religious and the other is not. But either way...as long as we are thankful for what we have, spend time with people we love, and help others when we can...we're pretty well off. I like to try to continue that year round ( yep thats the sap in me, again.)

seen a few of my friends on here post things about thanksgiving. what exactly is it?! am i missing out on a huge party or something?

I knew you were serious, but the huge party part got me laughing.

..

I agree with what everyone posted above, but they left out a few key points:
*many of the men sit around and watch football all day, and
*the women cook and clean until they are thoroughly exhausted. Traditional fare includes a roasted turkey, stuffing, cranberries, potatos, pumpkin pie, and much, much more.
*The holiday always takes place on the fourth Thursday of November in the US and the second Monday in October in Canada.


The following day is BlackFriday where many of the stores have major sales that start early in the morning to jump start the Christmas holiday.

Your family is pretty sexist, huh?

The roles are also quite gender-seperated in my family, and family-by-marriage, yet somehow I wouldn't quite call them sexist....simply traditional.
We have a large mass of people (20+) descending onto the family matriarch's very modest suburban home, so space is at an absolute premium. No one is much into football, so the men and a few of the younger women gather together outside to smoke, talk *kitten*, watch over the flock of kids running amok and maybe take a look at whoever's vehicle is currently having problems, and make sure the folding tables and chair are set up on the back patio. The 'women' include the matriarch (Granny), her daughters, and the eldest of the third generation's women who have been attending the affair for a decade or more. We all know who's doing what without asking, and have the ability to work efficiently around eachother in tight quarters without confusion. We 'womenfolk' get the buffet set up, and then prepare and carry the plates outside for our men and children. We know exactly what our men and kids want, and it's much less chaotic than having the men & kids running about in the tiny kitchen and dining room.

So maybe it is sexist, but one could also argue that it's quite patronizing against the Y chromosomes...they only get in the way of the real work.

(For the record, my family is staunchly Texan, highly matriarchal and not a one of us would 'take *kitten* from any man'. Many of the women in my family are the primary breadwinners, and the idea of some simpering, kowtowing-to-the-man newlywed girl would send us into gales of laughter.)

Christmas is about the birth of Christ. That alone is the sole purpose of Christmas.

So why is it in December when Christ was born in the spring?


OHHHHHH because Christmas is the celebration of the Winter Solstice that was taken over by early Christians so they could use the Pagan holiday as their own and not get so persecuted......I remember now.

^ So much truth.

Its a celebration of the harvest. Most european/european decended countries have some sort of holiday marking the harvest

Sorrry i live in the UK, so when my american friends mention it i have noo idea what it is and i was just wanting to know!

I think the UK should do thanksgiving! Id be goood at celebrating with drinks and food

But noooo the UK is tooo lame for that sorta thing!

Since the holiday in the States is tied to the arrival of Puritan pilgrims fleeing England's religious persecution, Brits could celebrate the departure of those wet blanket Puritans! :laugh:

Actually this is untrue. Puritans did not leave England to escape persecution. They did it because English society did not want to act like them. We were far to debauched for their tastes.

Actually this is partially untrue. The Puritans did protest that the English reformation fell short, and that the CoE was far too Catholic in it's practices, but -

(from Wiki)
"James I was succeeded by his son Charles I of England in 1625. In the year before becoming King, he married Henrietta-Marie de Bourbon of France, a Roman Catholic daughter of the convert Henry IV of France, who refused to attend the coronation of her husband in a non-Catholic cathedral. She had no tolerance for Puritans. At the same time, William Laud, Bishop of London, was becoming increasingly powerful as an advisor to Charles. Laud viewed Puritans as a schismatic threat to orthodoxy in the church. With the Queen and Laud among his closest advisors, Charles pursued policies to eliminate the religious distinctiveness and "excesses" of Puritans. Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, and moved the Church of England away from Puritanism, rigorously enforcing the law against ministers who deviated from the Book of Common Prayer or who refused to read the Book of Sports after its re-issue in 1633, a shibboleth for the Sabbatarian views spread by Nicholas Bownde and Nicholas Byfield.

Charles relied largely on the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission to implement his policies, courts under the control of the King, not the Parliament, capable of convicting and imprisoning Puritans under prerogative. He adapted them as instruments of suppression, following the juristic methods of Elizabeth I in dealing in the 1590s with the supporters of Thomas Cartwright. The Puritan movement in England then allied itself with the cause of "England's ancient liberties"; the unpopularity of Laud was a major factor leading to the English Civil War, during which Puritans formed the backbone of the parliamentarian forces. Laud was arrested in 1641 and executed in 1645, after a lengthy trial in which a large mass of evidence was brought, tending to represent him as obstructive of the "godly" and amounting to the whole, detailed Puritan case against the royal church policy of the preceding decade."

Am I supposed to be sorry for not giving enough of a *kitten* to run down to the nearest library to argue against a forum post that will be forgotten within hours?
Just because it's on wiki doesn't mean it's wrong.

"Laud's theology was influenced by the teachings of the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), who emphasised free will over predestination and an acceptance of ordered and uniform practices of worship. Laud's love of ceremony and harmonious liturgy — the "beauty of holiness" — was favoured by King Charles because it encouraged obedience to the King's authority as head of the church. During the eleven-year Personal Rule, Laud worked closely with the King to root out nonconformity. Between 1634 and 1637, Laud authorised methodical "visitations" by his vicar-general Sir Nathaniel Brent in every diocese throughout the kingdom to enforce conformity and to correct irregularities in the conduct of services. Dilapidation in the fabric of churches was also reported and repairs ordered. Laud believed that he was restoring discipline and order to the Church of England according to the rules laid down in the earliest days of the English Reformation. However, his attempts to force uniformity of worship ran contrary to all shades of Puritan opinion, and his Arminian doctrines were regarded as dangerously close to Roman Catholicism.

Although Laud's severity was often exaggerated by his critics, he was intolerant of opposition and made full use of the courts of Star Chamber and High Commission to punish dissidents. In 1637, the religious radicals William Prynne, Henry Burton and John Bastwick were tortured and imprisoned for speaking and writing against Laud's policies, which succeeded in making them into Puritan martyrs. The rabble-rousing John Lilburne was persecuted in 1638, provoking further popular outcry against Laud and his bishops." - http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/laud.htm


Better?

And if you're going to troll, try targeting someone who gives a *poopie*. Otherwise your time's just wasted. But gj on getting my original post deleted because (gasp) I uttered the more vulgar term for solid waste matter.

Have a good day o/

"Laud's theology was influenced by the teachings of the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), who emphasised free will over predestination and an acceptance of ordered and uniform practices of worship. Laud's love of ceremony and harmonious liturgy — the "beauty of holiness" — was favoured by King Charles because it encouraged obedience to the King's authority as head of the church. During the eleven-year Personal Rule, Laud worked closely with the King to root out nonconformity. Between 1634 and 1637, Laud authorised methodical "visitations" by his vicar-general Sir Nathaniel Brent in every diocese throughout the kingdom to enforce conformity and to correct irregularities in the conduct of services. Dilapidation in the fabric of churches was also reported and repairs ordered. Laud believed that he was restoring discipline and order to the Church of England according to the rules laid down in the earliest days of the English Reformation. However, his attempts to force uniformity of worship ran contrary to all shades of Puritan opinion, and his Arminian doctrines were regarded as dangerously close to Roman Catholicism.

Although Laud's severity was often exaggerated by his critics, he was intolerant of opposition and made full use of the courts of Star Chamber and High Commission to punish dissidents. In 1637, the religious radicals William Prynne, Henry Burton and John Bastwick were tortured and imprisoned for speaking and writing against Laud's policies, which succeeded in making them into Puritan martyrs. The rabble-rousing John Lilburne was persecuted in 1638, provoking further popular outcry against Laud and his bishops." - http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/laud.htm


Better?

And if you're going to troll, try targeting someone who gives a *poopie*. Otherwise your time's just wasted. But gj on getting my original post deleted because (gasp) I uttered the more vulgar term for solid waste matter.

Have a good day o/

For what it's worth, I reported you. Cheers! :drinker: