JC>  DM> Have you seen any literature on what life was like prior to the 
coming
JC>  DM> of the  europeans, (traders, explorers, etc.)?  Paul Wallace's book
JC>  DM> takes the issue  from the founding of the Five Nations 
(Haudenosaunee)
JC>  DM> Confederacy  approximately 1250 A.D. forward.
JC> 
JC>  That would sound like a very narrow focus that is outside my area (the 
PNW
JC>  of interest. Are you talking about a book titled: "White Roots of Peace: 
T
JC>  Iroquois" by Paul Wallace?
 
That's the one.  I'm aware of your interest in the cultural clashes of the 
16th and 17th centuries.  My interest is in the times preceeding them, and 
subsequent European contact.
 
The Northwest peoples had a longstanding trade history with Russian trappers 
and fishermen.  There is some architectural evidence of contact between Asia 
and Central America, (pagoda style roofs,) and possibly even the Egytian 
Civilizations, (the Pyramids).  It's also easy to see how early european 
contacts would have been viewed as potential trade partners.  (The well 
documented contacts with the Powhattan and Narraganssett nations, in the 
arly
colonial periods.)
 
JC>  DM> In fact, if I recall correctly, anyone group who showed an interest 
in
JC>  DM> joining the Confederacy and living by their rules, was welcome to 
join
JC>  DM> as the  Tuscarora did approximately 1600.  
JC>  
JC>  But as you say, as long as the group wanting to join wanted to live by 
the
JC>  rules of the Confederation. And if they didn't want to live by the rules 
(
JC>  join the Confederation), then what? Here's an example of the kinds of 
issu
JC>  White addresses:
JC> 
JC>  At the signing of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix did the Confederation "sign 
o
JC>  territory that really "belonged" to the Shawnee? (Somewhere I have a 
copy 
JC>  that treaty, I think.)
 
Have you read "An Indians View of Indian Affairs," by Chief Joseph?   In that 
article, he says that it was common for one "appointed chief" to sign a 
document without knowing what was on it, and having the document then applied 
to everyone.  That is how much of the "indian territory" was "sold".  The 
indians who first dealt with the europeans had no written language, and did 
not understand english.  They had to rely on the honesty of the translators 
that the government (british or american) provided.  
 
As far as the Haudenosaunee "selling" the Shawnee's land, no I've never heard 
that, but it would make sense wouldn't it?  Let your enemies deal with the 
land theives.  Haven't you ever heard that "every treaty contained a land 
concession"?  Why give away your land, if you can instead give away your 
enemy's land?  The Natives may have been illiterate, but they weren't stupid.
JC>  They couldn't have avoided being caught up. But the issues White 
addresses
JC>  in "The Middle Ground" is _how_ the Native Americans dealt with issues.
JC>  (Think "compromise" or "making the best of a bad situation" when 
hinking
JC>  "middle ground". White isn't referring to geography.) In some cases, the
JC>  Native Americans did what they thought best under the circumstances at 
the
JC>  time.
 
Wouldn't you?  
When I hear the term middle ground, I think of compromise.  And no, I've 
ever
heard of that book.  I'm aware though, that the natives had two choices, cave 
in or perish.  Which would you choose, War or Reservation?  
 
The Spanish Conquistadores "had a sickness that could only be cured by the 
yellow metal," as they told the early natives.  The English sickness was for 
land, and the French was for pelts and land.  You can see who was less 
honorable in their dealings.  The Americans only continued the success 
ormula
of the Enghlish.
 
JC>  DM> In smaller groupings however, secular types of civilizations tend to
JC>  DM> grow and  according the the food availability.  The Hopi and 
uebloan
JC>  DM> peoples have lived their way for over 700 years with little outside
JC>  DM> influence.   
JC>  
JC>  Hmmm... I would say the Spanish presence after about 1500 was a LOT of
JC>  outside influence.
 
The Spanish did have some influence over the Pueblos, because they needed the 
food.  However, they had little or no influcence on the Hopi, as they had 
nothing of value for the Spanish to steal.  (They were and still are 
subsistance farmers.)
 
The primary influence on the Hopi recently has been the missionaries who came 
among them, and have found little success in gaining converts.
 
JC>  DM> Cooperation seems to be the key, and greed and arrogance are the 
welds
JC>  DM> which  seem to fuse the locks and keep the keys from working.  
JC>  
JC>  I agree. However, at some point "greed and arrogance" always seem to 
ear
JC>  their ugly heads in almost all cultures. Would exploitation of 
fur-bearing
JC>  animals to obtain European trade goods qualify as "greed"?
Ture enough.  The key here is that prior to the coming of the european 
traders, there was little exploitation of the animals.  The trade goods the 
europeans brought made life easier, so they were much valued.  As their value 
grew, the value of the pelts became less, requiring more pelts to purchase 
he
same goods.  (Early inflation.)  Here again, is an example of capitalism 
feeding on itself, the destruction of supplies for personal gain.
 
JC>  DM> The "enemies of the Confederation" then faced the entire
JC>  DM> confederation's  warriors, not just those of a member nation.  
JC>  
JC>  And during the time White is writing about, the Confederation's enemies
JC>  changed. At one point in time the French might be their ally then later
JC>  the British then during the Revolutionary War some members of the
JC>  Confederation sided with the Colonials. French, British, Colonials... 
ll
JC>  Europeans. Almost all more powerful than any individual Native nation. 
The
JC>  natives allied with whichever side they thought was going to "win" at 
ny
JC>  given point in time. What other choice did they have? There was slim 
chanc
JC>  they would all join together against the Europeans although several 
ell-
JC>  known NA leaders tried. (Pontiac, Tecumseh, etc.)
As I said before, they may have been illiterate, but they weren't stupid.  In 
time of war, it's best to have allies.  I'm sure you'd ally yourself with the 
side that had the best chance of winning a fight, wouldn't you?
 
Sure the enemies changed over the years, earlier, it was the Hurons and the 
Shawnee, then came a new enemy, the French and the English.  Later still, the 
English or the Colonials.  
 
Tecumseh and Pontiac were probably the first to realize that the European or 
"White Man" was the real enemy, and tried to develop a confederacy along the 
lines of the Haudenosaunee, to fight the invaders.  However, old feuds die 
hard, and enemies would ally with the whites, against their ancient enemies.
 
I think, that in essence we are talking about the same thing with regard to 
the early interference by the whites.  Like I said before, my interest is in 
the "pre-colonization" ideologies, rather than in the conflict or "clash of 
cultures".  
 
Dennis Martin
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------