-=> Quoting Dennis Martin to Jim Casto <=-
 DM> That's the one.  I'm aware of your interest in the cultural clashes of
 DM> the  16th and 17th centuries.  My interest is in the times preceeding
 DM> them, and  subsequent European contact.
 
 Actually, Anthropology/Archaeology is my Minor. I just completed a course
 on "Prehistory of the Pacific Northwest".
 DM> The Northwest peoples had a longstanding trade history with Russian
 DM> trappers  and fishermen.
 Do you have some sources that claim that the Russians were in the Pacific
 Northwest prior to 1728 and Vitus Bering? (I just did a report for my
 Canadian History seminar on "Early Explorers of the Pacific Northwest".)
 DM> There is some architectural evidence of
 DM> contact between Asia  and Central America, (pagoda style roofs,) and
 DM> possibly even the Egytian  Civilizations, (the Pyramids).
 I'd be a little suspicious of anyone publishing _that_ claim/connection.
 IMHO, that theory precludes independent thought on the part of the 
ndigenous
 peoples of the Western Hemisphere. There was a piece on "racing the grave
 robbers" on the news the other day. The site is in northern Peru (Sipans
 is the name of the place, as I recall). Two items of interest. The locals 
were
 electroplating long before the process appeared in Europe and they were
 growing cotton in several (five, I think) different colors.
 DM> It's also
 DM> easy to see how early european  contacts would have been viewed as
 DM> potential trade partners.  (The well  documented contacts with the
 DM> Powhattan and Narraganssett nations, in the early colonial periods.)
 
 Of course, why would the natives look upon new visitors in any other way?
 They were well acquainted with "foreign" trade. I suspect that even today
 we don't look at _everyone_ with suspicion. (Although, I _personally_
 "suspect" _most_ used car dealers, lawyers, TV evangelists, telemarketers
 and a few others. )
 
 DM> Have you read "An Indians View of Indian Affairs," by Chief Joseph?  
 
  I am _well_ acquainted with the Chief Joseph speech and much of
 the controversy surrounding it. It (like the "Chief Seattle speech") is
 a _particular_ "passion" of mine. 
 DM> In that  article, he says that it was common for one "appointed chief"
 DM> to sign a  document without knowing what was on it, and having the
 DM> document then applied  to everyone.  That is how much of the "indian
 DM> territory" was "sold".
 That happens to this day. The President (or some other government offical)
 "sells" _public_ National Forest land all the time. And I don't think that
 was the case with Joseph's people, the Nez Perce. I think Lawyer knew full
 well what he was doing/signing. The personal rewards were too much of a
 temptation.
 DM> The  indians who first dealt with the europeans
 DM> had no written language, and did  not understand english.  They had to
 DM> rely on the honesty of the translators  that the government (british or
 DM> american) provided.   
 
 I suspect that many of the translators were native or maybe mixed-bloods.
 As early as Squanto in the 1600s, natives could speak English. And, again,
 even today we rely on lawyers to translate "legalese". In many cases I
 suspect eyes glaze over and people sign documents without having the 
oggiest
 idea of what they are really signing.
 DM> As far as the Haudenosaunee "selling" the Shawnee's land, no I've
 DM> never heard  that, but it would make sense wouldn't it?  Let your
 DM> enemies deal with the  land theives.
 Actually, I suspect that it was more a case of "trying to cut a good deal".
 Just like what the so-called "Christian Nez Perce" did. (Which is what Chief
 Joseph was referring to.)
 DM> Haven't you ever heard that
 DM> "every treaty contained a land  concession"?
 I have copies of about 309? treaties. And I think some treaties were signed
 that did not contain a cession of land. Peace treaties. (For an excellent
 book on treaties, look for "American Indian Treaties: The History of a
 Political Anomaly" by Francis Paul Prucha.)
 DM> Why give away your land,
 DM> if you can instead give away your  enemy's land?  The Natives may have
 DM> been illiterate, but they weren't stupid. 
 
 But then they must have known what signing the treaties meant. They must 
ave
 _known_ there was an advantage to giving away their enemy's land. Plus,
 wouldn't they be the only ones who knew for sure that the land _was_ their
 enemy's? How would a European know? They would have _had_ to have known that
 the European's intent was "exploitation". And what do you suppose the enemy
 is going to think when they find out what was done to them? Not real happy,
 I suspect. BTW, when _you_ negotiate to buy something, don't you _assume_
 that the seller has a "right" to sell that something to you?
 DM> Wouldn't you?  
 
 Absolutely. We all do it all the time. We almost always choose the
 "strongest" (or richest or most powerful) ally. And in some cases, that
 doesn't happen. It's called: "ideology" or "principles". 
 DM> When I hear the term middle ground, I think of compromise.  And no,
 DM> I've never heard of that book.  I'm aware though, that the natives had
 DM> two choices, cave  in or perish.  Which would you choose, War or
 DM> Reservation?   
 
 That's the same kind of choice someone would have to make today if their
 real estate were being "condemned" in the "public's best interest". Like
 for building freeways. But it's interesting that some people don't get too
 concerned if the problem is in "someone else's backyard". We are having a
 simlar dilemma in Oregon right now over siting of prisons. Everyone says
 "NIMBY" but the majority voted to build the prisons. Now the "chief" (aka
 Governor Kitzhaber) will make the final decision.
 DM> The Spanish Conquistadores "had a sickness that could only be cured by
 DM> the  yellow metal," as they told the early natives.  The English
 DM> sickness was for  land, and the French was for pelts and land.
 Hmm. I haven't found too much evidence that the French were ever interested
 in land in large quantities. But, as for the "pelts" issue... I (along with
 billions of others) trade "pelts" (in the form of dollars or some other form
 of currency) almost every day. The _difference_ between me and the billions
 of other people is how we acquire those "dollars". Another book of White's
 ("Roots of Dependency") explores that area very well.
 DM> You can
 DM> see who was less  honorable in their dealings.  The Americans only
 DM> continued the success formula of the Enghlish.
 
 Well, if your enemy is the British and you are American, I would suspect
 that any ally of the British would be your enemy, too. Hence George
 Washington ordering John Sullivan's rampage through Iroquois country. Then,
 again, to use my analogy of the "pelts". It's not considered "nice" to 
nvade
 someone else's "hunting ground" to obtain more "pelts" _simply_ because one
 want's a better cooking pot or blanket.
 
 DM> The primary influence on the Hopi recently has been the missionaries
 DM> who came  among them, and have found little success in gaining
 DM> converts. 
 
 Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr. is the author to read about missionary/religious
 influence. Another extremely complex issue.
 DM> Ture enough.  The key here is that prior to the coming of the european
 DM> traders, there was little exploitation of the animals.  The trade
 DM> goods the  europeans brought made life easier, so they were much
 DM> valued.  As their value  grew, the value of the pelts became less,
 DM> requiring more pelts to purchase the same goods.  (Early inflation.) 
 DM> Here again, is an example of capitalism  feeding on itself, the
 DM> destruction of supplies for personal gain. 
 
 Absolutely, the same is true today. Capitalism in the form of advertising,
 peer pressure, the "American work ethic", easy credit, etc., etc. all 
ttempt
 to entice me into parting with my hard-earned money (or even my taking
 advantage of my fellow man to get _more_ money). But that doesn't mean I
 _have_ to succumb to the temptation, does it? I suspect that because the
 natives _were_ aware that over-trapping/hunting would cause the decline of
 animal species that the "desire" was stronger than the "will". And there is
 disagreement as to how "willful" the non-exploitation might have been. It is
 possible that animals were not exploited prior to European contact because
 the population pressure simply wasn't there. This all gets into the issues
 of sedentism, agriculture, etc. Again, "Roots of Dependency" discusses 
ssues
 like this very well.
 DM> As I said before, they may have been illiterate, but they weren't
 DM> stupid.  In  time of war, it's best to have allies.  I'm sure you'd
 DM> ally yourself with the  side that had the best chance of winning a
 DM> fight, wouldn't you? 
 
 Ah, but you choose your allies early on in the "game" and you only _think_
 you know who is going to win in the end. Several nations allied themselves
 with Hilter and Germany because they actually thought he had a chance of
 winning. And allegiances change. Both Germany and Japan are our allies. And
 the Soviet Union was/is now our enemy. In 1958 I was down in Cuba. The U.S.
 was supporting Castro against Battista. Almost forty years later some 
 Congressperson wants to make an issue over whether or not _Canada_ wants to
 trade with Cuba.
 DM> invaders.  However, old feuds die  hard, and enemies would ally with
 DM> the whites, against their ancient enemies. 
 
 Absolutely. Thereby becoming "participants" as one of my history professors
 would say. But nothing ever stays stagnant. Cultures and civilizations have
 been "feuding" for centuries.
 DM> I think, that in essence we are talking about the same thing with
 DM> regard to  the early interference by the whites.  Like I said before,
 DM> my interest is in  the "pre-colonization" ideologies, rather than in
 DM> the conflict or "clash of  cultures".  
 
 Actually, when it comes to the Pacific Northwest, I am interested in both
 because, IMHO, they go hand-in-hand. It's hard for me to grasp any kind of
 understanding about the people indigenous to this area without knowing what
 happened in the past and all of the conditions (including environmental)
 that got everyone that now lives here to where they are today. In other
 words, I feel that in order to "understand" the present, I need to know
 about the "past". I only have a passing interest in other parts of the
 Western Hemisphere because of school. (Like the current class in
 "Comparative World History" which so far has been ALL about the Eastern
 seaboard, Central and South America. But, it is a course required for my
 degree.)
 
 There is an interesting article in the local paper today about the 
nternment
 of the Japanese duirng WW II. The title asks: "What were we thinking?" 
ere's
 a quote that applies to the subject under discussion.
 
 "What were we thinking? It is one of those questions of the ages. We
 glance back at a senseless or savage moment in our history and wonder
 aloud whatever possessed us. What were we afraid of? What were we thinking
 of 55 years ago? And what are we thinking that, 55 years from now, will seem 
 equally embarrassing and leave us ashen with regret?"
(Steve Duin - "The Oregonian", Portland, Oregon, April 13,1997)
 While Duin's "55 years ago" reference applies to the Japanese internment, if
 we subsitute virtually ANY minority from NAs to elderly to children to ...
 we can ask the same question.
 "What were we thinking? What were we afraid of?" 
 
  
 Jim
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------