[ I would like to highlight the remark Cliff makes in the second part of
his article: "I would ... prefer that the insults be dropped so that we
might both concentrate on the historical truth..." Unfortunately, Cliff
follows this remark with what sounds like another insult. I'd really
prefer if we could dispense with the name-calling in what could be a very
fascinating debate. I am at the point of deciding to stop carrying this
discussion, given that there is so much rancor developing. I see nothing
wrong with strongly-worded opinions, but I see no reason for personal
insults, in which both sides have been engaging. They remain free to
slug it out via personal email if they so desire, of course. I would
welcome personal messages to me offering the feelings of other NativeNet
readers, to give me some basis for making my decision. Thanks. --Gary ]
===========================================================================
BBS: CONNECTIONS BBS
Date: 04-07-92 (20:11) Number: 101
From: NativeNet@gnosys.svle.ma.us
>From: CLIFF SHEPSTONE Refer#: NONE
To: FRED TOWNER Recvd: NO
Subj: A little knowledge.. 1/ Conf: (10) Indian_Aff
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Fred;
What is this? More "hate mail" from your hit-and-run aquaintances?
When I make a statement, I not only take care not to attack the
writer to whom I am replying (I make a rare exception in this case), but
I also make sure to include references wherever applicable. This garbage
that you have contaminated the echo with is just that - garbage, and is
reminiscent of sort of sniping from behind cover!
Whether or not this reply reaches the author(?), I will answer his
points, WITH REFERENCES:
FT>--Recent postings have included a debate between a "Cliff"
FT>and some of my Mohawk brothers.
FT>to take this "Cliff" idiot seriously.
I suspect that any unprejudiced readers will know which of us speaks
truth and is to be taken seriously. Also, although I do not choose to
call HIM an "idiot", I believe the unprejudiced readers will readily
know to which of us this epithet most aptly applies.
It might also be worth noting that *I* have not hidden behind vague
and no doubt spurious pretensions of credibility, such as "Department of
Government, Cornell University". Is he there at all? If so, does he
deliver mail, or what? Clearly he has neither the intellect nor the
training to be an academic, thus I call it "spurious".
FT> The man obviously has had an introduction to the history of my
FT>people,but a rudimentary familiarity with the background does not
FT>make one an instant expert, unless of course you are an
FT>anthropologist.
I have frequently said that I am NOT an expert, which is why I seldom
express personal opinions on the subject, but quote historical
references or ask questions only. Clearly, the history conflicts
with what some people would prefer, and my questions have proved
embarrassing.
FT>1. Every 1st year anthropology student or anyone who has taken a
FT>course, or read a book for that matter, on the native history of
FT>the St, Lawrence Valley knows that there is a difference between
FT>IROQOUIAN and IROQUOIS.
Examples? I think I very clearly identified the occupants of
Hochelaga, etc, as Iroquoian, not Iroquois (although there have been a
lot of messages on that theme - I can't be sure of ALL of them). In the
book "Stolen Continents" and in many posts on this echo, those occupants
are falsely described as Mohawk. As a matter of interest, though, I
think the distinction, as applied to a people, is solely in the minds of
the Six Nation Iroquois of today. Do they seriously state that the Erie,
the Andaste, the Neutral and a host of other Iroquoian tribes were not
Iroquois? What then, I wonder, were they? Iroquoian describes a
language, cultural traits, etc., just as you say, but I think those
people were in fact Iroquois, even if it is hard to swallow for you.
(For a pseudo-academic, you have a very tenuous grasp of nouns vs
adjectives.)
FT>con-flates the two, but the former refers to a language group and
FT>the second refers to a group of nations organized into a confederacy.
FT>Its the same thing as the comparison between GERMANIC peoples and
FT>the GERMAN nation-state.
Lets be completely accurate, shall we? Five (later six) of the many
existing Iroquois nations organized themselves into a confederacy; by
that fact alone they choose to deny and disinherit all other Iroquois.
FT>His assertion, unbending, that the names cited by Cartier for the
FT>natives he encountered at Hochelaga are accurate, is most
FT>troubelsome. Good Renaissence man that he was, is it possible that
FT>Cartier having been among Iroquoian peoples for a few weeks, could
FT>have mistakenly transcribed or misinterpreted the true name of the
FT>individuals he encountered?
Or we could assume he was drunk at the time, was a moronic incompetent,
or we could otherwise try to re-write history for all kinds of
manufactured reasons. This is your idea of a rational argument?
FT> Cliff is sure that the Frenchman knew more than the natives about
FT>the natives' own name. This is simply false. For example, the name
FT>for the island Cartier visited was listed as Hochelaga. A French
FT>historian (1700's) later wrote that the name used by the
FT>inhabitants was actually closer to "Onnonchehaga."
No references? But I will pass this even though I have never heard of
it before. As I said, I am no expert. It seems likely, though, in
view of the fact that those people had completely disappeared by the
time Champlain visited there 70 years later, that your French historian
(if he exists) was himself trying to re-write history 150 to 250 years
after the fact. Cartier HEARD and recorded the word, how could your
anonymous "historian" have known better than he?
FT>In Mohawk, this word means "people of the mountain."
In Mohawk, eh? And is Mohawk an "Iroquoian" language? I wonder what
that word meant in the language of those other Iroquoian people who
were there to meet Cartier?
FT>My point is that Cliffs statement that "Donnacona" etc.. are not
FT>Mohawk words, is just plain ignorant. And little proof that the
FT>settlements were not Mohawk.
Please, no sweeping and false statements - use quotes. I think I have
NEVER made that statement. I have frequently said that those PEOPLE
were not Mohawk. Since I do not speak any of the native languages, it
is highly unlikely that I would enter into an argument on them.
(Actually, I'm suprised. From your message, I would have thought you
had much more familiarity with "just plain ignorant")
FT>3. Cliff states that the Mohawks Cartier encountered were
FT>"primitive" because they 1) slept on the ground under a canoe;
FT>and, 2) ate raw fish and meat.
No, Cliff didn't. Cliff quoted the text of a book. (I'm quite sure I
gave the reference at the time - I almost always do - but I don't keep
those old messages and the reference escapes me now. I won't waste
time by searching for it again. Also, I most certainly did not say
"the Mohawks" Cartier encountered..."; I have repeatedly shown to any
intelligent reader that those natives were NOT Mohawk! This "attack
by false quote" method of yours is getting a bit tiresome!
FT>This just plain racist. Furthermore, it is stupid.
Right on both counts. Why not smarten up a bit?
FT>4. The Mohawk Nation was not "moved" by anyone. The Mohawk people
FT>themselves migrated north because of very specific economic,
FT>political and religious reasons.
Once again, you attribute statements falsely to me. I said the
first Mohawks were moved here by the Jesuits - I did NOT say that the
Mohawk Nation was moved by them! I can quote you at least a dozen
references for that, including "The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire", by
Francis Jennings (a scholar and former Director of the Newberry Library
Center for the History of the American Indians) who states that the
Jesuits started moving the Christian converts north in 1669 to
"eliminate the pressures put on those converts by their traditionalist
kin" (I paraphrased this quote, but did not alter the meaning) and that
by 1680 there were 400 of those converts who had moved north, and "The
drain took a serious toll of Mohawk strength."
Or perhaps you are taking issue with the fact that the majority of the
Iroquois (including Mohawk) who eventually moved to Canada went with
Chief Joseph Brant after the American War of Independence?
Get a life, man!
>>> Continued to next message
___
X SLMR 2.1a X
--- Maximus 2.01wb
* Origin: EXCESS BBS Calgary, Alta (403)285-7338 VHST SDS/PDN (1:134/17)
===========================================================================
BBS: CONNECTIONS BBS
Date: 04-07-92 (20:11) Number: 102
From: NativeNet@gnosys.svle.ma.us
>From: CLIFF SHEPSTONE Refer#: NONE
To: FRED TOWNER Recvd: NO
Subj: A little knowledge.. 2/ Conf: (10) Indian_Aff
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Continued from previous message
FT>This type of thinking reaaly galls me. You all saw what happened
FT>when an outside government attepted to "move" the Mohawks in 1990,
FT>what makes Cliff think that our more powerful ancestors would have
FT>so meekly followed the orders or schemes of what was still a weak
FT>squatter government back in the 18th century?
What galls me is idiots who not only make false statements and claims,
but also mis-quote others in order to make a point! Idiots who also
do not know the history of their own people! And yet they argue!
>From the same reference (Jennings), page 102: "On at least one occasion
(in the pre-1664 period) the Mohawks pleaded with the Dutch to compel
their eastern enemies to make peace.", and on page 130: "when Englishmen
took command at Fort Orange (in 1664), newly renamed Albany, the Mohawks
earnestly desired the newcomers to mediate peace with their near
neigbors, 'the Nations down the Hudson River'". Again, how about page
202: "In January 1693, a French expedition destroyed all the Mohawk
villages and captured three hundred of their people, mostly
non-combatants." (the warriors had fled in advance of the attackers)
and, several lines down: "Realistically, the Iroquois began to consider
ending a war they could no longer win." or, on page 209: "About 1698 or
1699, a climactic battle took place on Lake Erie during which 'a vast
number' of Iroquois were killed and 'only one taken prisoner by the
western nations'. The battle was reported from both Ojibwa and Iroquois
traditions of the early nineteenth century but deleted from the later
Iroquois tradition".
I guess this notion of rewriting history is not new, eh?
In case you're wondering, BTW, Jenning's book is well documented and is
replete with biblios and footnotes; the single quotes and the square
parentheses are in the text; regular parentheses indicate a comment of
mine. I found the book several years ago in the "Required texts"
section of the University of Calgary bookstore, so I assume it to be
generally accepted as valid in the academic world.
But I'm sorry - you DID speak of the 18th century, didn't you? So
lets take a look at the beginning of that century. On page 206: "The
stark effects of the French punishment show in the available estimates
of the Iroquois population. By 1689 it had risen to the height of
2,570 warriors [implying 7,710 - 12,750 persons], apparently as the
result of adoption of captives. Eleven years later (1700, no?), however,
the numbers had declined traumatically, to 1,230 [implying only 3,690 -
6,150 persons]. An absolute reduction of more than 50% was shared by all
the constituent nations though the Mohawks and the Oneidas suffered
most. Gunther Michelson's compilation itemizes as follows: Mohawks, a
drop from 270 warriors to 110; Oneidas, down from 180 to 70; Onandagas,
500 to 250; Cayugas, 320 to 200; Senecas, 1,300 to 600."
(The G Michelson referred to is the author of "Iroquois Population
Statistics", published in "Man in the Northeast", Fall 1977, and is one
of Jenning's sources)
So this, then, is your "more powerful ancestors"? 110 warriors? Wow,
they must have really put the fear into the white nations! (76 years
before the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and at a time when both the
French and British were present in strength on the continent) Even
allowing a 100% error - 220 warriors? Powerful? c'mon!
(BTW, those figures obviously do not include the "Praying Mohawk" who
had long since moved up to Caughnawaga, and who were ALLIES of the
French then.) And please, don't nit-pick with the numbers; the above are
obviously no more than educated estimates, but certainly illustrate the
broad picture of the day.
FT>5. Correction: Kanienkahaka means "people of the flint" in reference
FT>the Mohawk nation. The word for Mohawk territory in Kanienka,
FT>or "land of the flint." The word "Mohawk" derives from a
FT>Massachusetts word which translates into "fearsome cannibal." Yes,
FT>people did practice ritual cannibalism as part of the blood feud
FT> as an instrument of war. No, Cliff does not under-stand the first
FT>ng about the significance or spiritual aspect to warfare among our
FT>ancestors, so he reduces everything to a criticism of the
FT>imperialistic and bloodthirsty nature of the Iroquois people.
And that's silly, isn't it? There's nothing bloodthirsty about
cannibalism, is there? But again, let's be honest here (if you can)
- when I made the comment, I was asking a question, not in any way
criticizing or denigrating the Mohawk. I read the comment, quoted it
on the echo (in a perfectly logical context of Indian nation names in
languages of other nations), and asked if it was true and if so, in what
language was it? I also asked for the history of the name. For that
much I thank you - you are the first one to provide answer to that
question. Please though, do not try to subvert my interest in history
and truth into racism and accusations - YOU are the expert at those
things, not I.
FT>I should end now, but I would like to finish by challenging anyone to
FT>dispute my facts. I am quite open to a debate with open minded
FT>people. However, as is the Iroquois tradition, Cliff has had his
FT>three chances and the time for words is finished.
Sounds characteristically cowardly. I have challenged virtually every
one of your false "facts"; if you have the courage, debate them with me,
instead of this invidious hit and run tactic! But I warn you - be
prepared to provide reliable references - I will scorn anything of the
calibre of that you posted in THIS attack! I would also prefer that
the insults be dropped so that we might both concentrate on the
historical truth, not the kind of stuff you are serving up in this
message.
FT>I think that if Cliff ever shows his face among us, he'll be given
FT>a complete education to supplement his feeble knowledge. And maybe
FT>he won't be so dangerous after undergoing that treatment.
Again, this sounds characteristic of a low intellect - debate by threat!
Wow, you're a real winner, Gerald!
[ Let's stop being so petty, guys. The remark is not characteristic of
anything except a regrettable tendency toward sarcasm, which I would
ask you to avoid if at all possible. --Gary ]
Fred- After the first couple of paras, I addressed all of my remarks
to Gerald Albert, the alleged author of this travesty. I would not
want you and Leitner to get off scot free though. I am sure that all
of the unprejudiced readers of this echo will recognize the disservice
you have done. By being parties to this scurrilous attack, you have
both demonstrated that you are cowardly asses, totally ignorant of the
topic at hand and without ethics of even the most basic kind. If YOU
want to take issue with what I say, do so yourselves instead of taking
this "bush-whacker" approach of searching the globe for one even MORE
unethical than yourselves! By this attack, you have already lost all
credibility - what more would you have to lose?
Have a good day!
Cliff
[ Someone might care to point out to Cliff that it was not Fred and/or
Roland (Leitner, who passed on the present article) who copied the
Fidonet "echo" message to NativeNet. It was Oliver Kluge in Munich,
Germany, who picked it up from Fido and posted it. --Gary ]
___
X SLMR 2.1a X
--- Maximus 2.01wb
* Origin: EXCESS BBS Calgary, Alta (403)285-7338 VHST SDS/PDN (1:134/17)