I had not intended to respond, simply because I did not have anything
to add. I was incredibly fascinated by your account, both the information
and the incredibly powerful way you had of presenting it. I forwarded
it to a friend of mine in Japan, along with some other things. I also
read parts of it to a few people, anyone I thought might listen. I wasn't
sure, I thought that parts of it were extracts from the book you mentioned
(I don't remember the name of it, I printed it out, but I don't
have the printout with me at the moment.) It said that the account was
true, and I wondered how the research was done. Was it oral histories,
research of written accounts, a combination, or what? I'm assuming
it was a combination. If it was oral histories, where did they
come from? Did the author go around to different tribes and
interview people? Were these descriptions handed down my people, or
did the author find out what happened and describe what it would
have looked like?
[ David Yarrow wrote "The ... narrative is taken from The Frontiersman
by Allan W. Eckert (copyright 1967)." --Gary ]
As to people's disinterest due to it's dealing with Native America, I
think I disagree. Many white people are very intrigued by Native
Americans and Native History, though not always for especially healthy
reasons. In my education class, for instance, we had to do reports
on different groups of people, and educational practices that
impact these groups, and the group looking into Native Americans was
the largest in the class. There are a lot of reasons for this. Some
people, I think, see Native Americans as some sort of exotic people,
people who have been oppressed in the past but everything's okay now.
In part, it's a frustration with the faults of mainstream white
culture, and a belief that turning away from it towards some exotic
non-western culture will solve all our society's problems. I've
seen people turn towards eastern religions and cultures (particularly
Japanese) for the same reasons. As if substituting another set of problems
will make everything better.
I'm not sure what my own interest is about. Part of it, at least, is a
general frustration at realizing my sense of history is very warped, and
wanting to fill in at least some of the gaps. I'm interested in
studying third world history for the same reason, although I'm not totally
satisfied with what I've been reading. The school I'm going to is very
western-civilization oriented, and it's hard to get good advice on
resources to use. Part of it is a general wish to understand oppression
in its various forms, not only what is done to people, but both the healthy
and unhealthy ways people respond to it, how people manage to rise above
it and why they don't. How to best go about ending it and building a
better society. I haven't figured out any good answers yet.
Though I'm majoring in history, there was no mention in any of my classes
about the New Madrid earthquake, the only thing I've ever seen about it
was something I saw at a rest-stop near the New Madrid site, and I had
never connected it to any other historical periods. I am only recently
learning to locate events in time at all, in high school I remember
having to memorize dates but not make any sense of them. I hope I can
teach it differently. (This will be hard, when I'm not sure that I
have even learned it well.)
You mentioned that religion refuses to discuss native spirituality at all,
especially one which involves predicting disaster and war against the
whites. For the most part, followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition
tend to think their way is the only way, but I believe that this has
more to do with the way they interpret the religious writings more
than the writings themselves. Certainly, if Christ had said that Native
American traditions were true or were false, no one listening to him at
that time would have had any idea what He was talking about. I've heard
that the Baha'i writings make several positive references to aboriginal
peoples in general and to Native Americans in particular, but I have not
seen them myself, so I don't know what they say, exactly.
My own beliefs can best be explained by an Indian (that is, from India) tale
about several blind men and an elephant. They went to figure out what an
elephant was. One felt this wide flat surface, and thought it must be
a wall. Another felt this wide, tall, round tube, and thought it must be
a tree. Another felt this thin, ropey thing, and thought it was a rope.
Another felt, this thick ropey thing, and felt it was a snake. In reality,
they were simply feeling the body, the leg, the tail, the trunk (left out
the tusks, which were interpreted to be a spear). They argued about
it instead of putting their information together to get a more
complete idea. I think that different religions have the complete
idea embedded within them, but people tend to focus on differing
aspects of them, and think they are more different than they are.
White people tend to think they have the only truth, and wish to push it
on others. My impression is that many Native Americans see religion as being
more personal, and often keep it to themselves. The idea (that I mentioned
earlier) of taking on exotic cultures, seen in this light, would only
result in exchanging one limited view for another.
I am interested in what you have to say, whether I respond or not. I
know that white people often have a way of silencing other groups, and
would prefer not to do the same myself, though I often am very outspoken,
maybe too much so. I have found most of what I have read here very
informative, scholarly, well thought out, and valuable. I wish I knew of
more networks that provided such a worthwhile discussion in other areas.
Certainly, my understanding of other "minority" groups is just as limited.
Please don't think that what you say is ignored or disrespected just
because no one responds to it. There are at least a few other reasons for
refraining from doing so.
Susan Witt (address: Switt@Knox.bitnet)