![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Manly Hearted Women, Two Spirited People, and just plain confused Europeans
So ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
beckyh2112 has been doing some awesome research on women who have taken on men’s roles in various cultures, and when she put out the call on Twitter I responded with the question – “Have you ever heard of Two-Spirited people?” After a quick discussion, I agreed to transcribe a fascinating passage from a fascinating book, detailing a subject that very few people actually know about.
The book itself was published by the University of Alberta Press (I go to this university! <3 ). I picked it up this summer because they had a sale on the history books at the Fort Edmonton giftshop, and since I’d walked past this shelf every day for months on my way in and out of work, and this particular book had been recommended to me many times by my co-workers… The temptation was too much to resist. I can claim it’s research for work, too, because I portrayed a Metis country wife. ;)
Sarah Carter’s The Importance of Being Monogamous: Marriage and Nation Building in Western Canada to 1915 (2008) deals not only with aboriginal peoples, but also later polygamous religious societies like Mormon groups. The chunks of the book on aboriginal culture were particularly relevant to me and my work, though, and fascinating to boot. Analyses of societies like these really do demonstrate that the supposedly “natural”, heterosexual, monogamous model proposed by Western Europeans… isn’t exactly as “natural” as it is made out to be.
This particular passage (pages 122-125) is on Two-Spirited people, who are super-cool. Originally, Becky was looking for specifically female-to-male gender reversals, I believe, but the reverse is also fascinating, and some cultural expectations applied to both groups.
“Aboriginal people of the plains also permitted marriages of people of the same sex. One of the spouses might be a “two spirit” who took on the activities, occupations, and dress of the opposite sex, in whole or in part, temporarily or permanently. There was no insistence on conformity to binaries of masculinity and femininity. Indian agents were frustrated by their inability to tell men and women apart, and they made mistakes, or were misled, when describing certain individuals. Oftentimes they did note the flexibility of gender roles when they described individuals to which annuities were paid, as is evident in terms such as “wife shown as boy last year,” “boy paid as girl last year,” and “boy now a man formerly ran as a girl.” Clothing, hair, footwear, and personal décor did not differentiate men from women in the way that Euro-Canadians were accustomed to. Qu’Appelle storekeeper Edward J. Brooks wrote in a 1882 letter to his wife-to-be that “I saw a couple of pure blooded Indians down at the station a couple of days ago and could not tell whether both were Squaws or not but finally made up my mind that they were man and wife. They were both dressed as nearly alike as possible, had long braided hair, wore lots of jewellery and had their faces painted with Vermillion paint.” An English visitor to Western Canada named Edward Roper wrote in his 1891 book that “most of us found it almost impossible to tell the young men and women apart; they were exactly alike in face [the men had no ‘beards or whiskers’], and being generally enveloped in blankets the difficulty increased.” All wore similar beautifully decorated moccasins, bangles, and earrings, Roper wrote.
In Plains societies there were women who did not marry and pursued activities mostly associated with men. They hunted buffalo and went to war. An informant to Goldfrank described a woman warrior who was treated as a true leader. She was renowned for acts of bravery such as going into an enemy’s tipi and taking headdresses from behind the bed. “She used to leave her legging at the enemy camp and they would say ‘that woman has been here again.’ She always slept alone, while the men remained in camp. She would sleep on top of the hill and she sang a song. The next day she would know where to lead the party.” This may have been the warrior another informant identified as “Trim Woman,” saying that “that kind of woman is always respected and everyone depends on them. They are admired for their bravery. They are ‘lucky’ on raids and so the men respect them.” Another Kainai woman, Empty Coulee, had a story similar to Trim Woman’s, but she had more courage, killing enemies and capturing guns, while Trim Woman only captured horses. After she became expert in raiding she changed her name to Running Eagle, a man’s name. She wore women’s clothing, but she “got respect as a ‘real man.’ She never married.
Some of the women who took on “manly” roles were married. In the book Five Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri, Edwin Thompson Denig, a fur trader during the years 1833 and 1856, described a Gros Ventre woman who was a respected warrior, negotiator and hunter, and who was regarded as the third-ranked chief of her band. She had a wife. Denig wrote, “Strange country this, where males assume the dress and perform the duties of females, while women turn men and made with their own sex.” There were also married women who participated in “manly” activities with their husbands. A Kainai woman named Elk-Yells-in-the-Water went on several war raids with her husband. She gave her adopted mother a horse she captured when she accompanied her husband on a war raid.
The “manly-hearted women” of the Blackfoot excelled at feminine occupations, had the finest (women’s) clothing, and were always married, often several times, and had children. But they also displayed characteristics classified as “masculine”: they were aggressive, independent, bold, and sexually forward. As Esther Goldfrank wrote, “the essential pattern of their lives always remained safely within the framework set for women as a sex,” but a manly-hearted woman would “make advances in affairs of the heart; she may refuse to marry the man of her father’s choice; she will marry in her own time, and she will not hesitate to beat off an irate husband. She is usually an excellent worker. This as well as her passionate response to love make her a desirable mate despite her wilfulness and domineering ways.”
There were also biological males who lived as women, many of whom married men. One Kainai named Pidgeon Woman, who was biologically male, “from babyhood until death… lived a female life – like a widow – no husband – used female expressions,” according to Goldfrank’s notes. Informants to the Hanks described two men who acted like women, had husbands, and did women’s work. One of these “really acts like a woman. Dresses like a woman, has bracelets up to his elbows, rings on fingers and had a husband. He made clothes and tanned hides like other women.” Another dressed and acted as a woman “from the start,” and he played with girls. His father and mother “were not shy about the way he was acting; all family knew he was a boy.” He “looked like a good looking woman” and was married several times. One man who dressed and acted as a woman was a renowned warrior who “sewed moccasins better than any woman, made buckskin suits and beaded blankets better than any woman.” He went on highly successful expeditions against the enemy Cree and Crow dressed as a woman. He had a devoted husband and was described as the only wife of the man. In his narrative of his many years spent among the Plains Saulteaux of southern Manitoba, John Tanner wrote about the son of a celebrated chief who was “one of those who make themselves women, and are called women by the Indians.” She (Tanner’s pronoun) had several husbands in the past and wanted to marry Tanner. When he refused, another man with two wives married her. When asked how they got married “if everyone knew they were not women,” a Hanks informant said, “No one said anything. Husbands knew and got them for wives. They knew but didn’t care if he was not a woman. Why have a woman like this? These husbands knew they were good at tipi and bead work. That is how they made up their mind. In every way they treated these men just like other women.”
“Two Spirits” were believed to have special gifts among Plains societies. Manitoba Dakota Elder Eva McKay explained, “they were special in the way that they seemed to have more skills than a single man or a single woman… He is two persons, this is when people would say they have more power than a single person. They were treated with respect.”
Note on terminology: in Canada, it is generally no longer considered entirely acceptable to refer to an individual as an “Indian”, as it is considered a pejorative term. “Squaw” has similar associations to the word “Negro” in the United States, and should generally be avoided unless quoting a historical source. There are lots of debates surrounding the most appropriate terminology; some natives themselves prefer the term “Indian” (arguing, basically, that hey, if I’ve been an Indian my whole life you can’t just tell me I’m not all of a sudden), but most, I’m told, dislike it. Other terms more frequently used are “aboriginal” (not to be confused with “aborigine”, which is an Australian term which is also considered pejorative), “native”, “first nations”, etc. When in doubt, the best thing to do is refer to them by their original tribe name, i.e., the Inuit, the Mi’kmaq, the Cree, the Piikani, etc. You wouldn’t want to lump everyone together in any case; generalizations like “all Europeans believe X” are probably inherently wrong anyway. The same should be said of the vastly diverse cultural groups that exist in the Americas.
(I’ll get off of my soapbox now. >_> I just got a little bit angry when elderly American tourists called me a “squaw” a few times this summer. Once I had a really old man look at me, raise his hand, and say “How!” and call me a squaw. He then proceeded to look extremely pleased by himself, like he had remembered the proper way to greet me or something. :\ I almost broke down when less than thirty seconds later his wife followed him and tugged on my braids to see if they were real, without so much as a by-your-leave. :P )
If anybody is interested in learning more on this subject, I can natter on for ages, so don't hesitate to ask questions! Is it spelt “Piegan” or "Peigan”? (Quick answer: both! Depends on what side of the border you’re on!) Why do the Blackfoot and the Cree hate each other so much? What is an Indian agent? How did plains marriage ceremonies work? How common was scalping, really?
Also, I did neglect to put in the footnotes when I transcribed this passage, so if anybody wants more information about the sources for the above text, don’t hesitate to ask! :)
beckyh2112 has been doing some awesome research on women who have taken on men’s roles in various cultures, and when she put out the call on Twitter I responded with the question – “Have you ever heard of Two-Spirited people?” After a quick discussion, I agreed to transcribe a fascinating passage from a fascinating book, detailing a subject that very few people actually know about. The book itself was published by the University of Alberta Press (I go to this university! <3 ). I picked it up this summer because they had a sale on the history books at the Fort Edmonton giftshop, and since I’d walked past this shelf every day for months on my way in and out of work, and this particular book had been recommended to me many times by my co-workers… The temptation was too much to resist. I can claim it’s research for work, too, because I portrayed a Metis country wife. ;)
Sarah Carter’s The Importance of Being Monogamous: Marriage and Nation Building in Western Canada to 1915 (2008) deals not only with aboriginal peoples, but also later polygamous religious societies like Mormon groups. The chunks of the book on aboriginal culture were particularly relevant to me and my work, though, and fascinating to boot. Analyses of societies like these really do demonstrate that the supposedly “natural”, heterosexual, monogamous model proposed by Western Europeans… isn’t exactly as “natural” as it is made out to be.
This particular passage (pages 122-125) is on Two-Spirited people, who are super-cool. Originally, Becky was looking for specifically female-to-male gender reversals, I believe, but the reverse is also fascinating, and some cultural expectations applied to both groups.
“Aboriginal people of the plains also permitted marriages of people of the same sex. One of the spouses might be a “two spirit” who took on the activities, occupations, and dress of the opposite sex, in whole or in part, temporarily or permanently. There was no insistence on conformity to binaries of masculinity and femininity. Indian agents were frustrated by their inability to tell men and women apart, and they made mistakes, or were misled, when describing certain individuals. Oftentimes they did note the flexibility of gender roles when they described individuals to which annuities were paid, as is evident in terms such as “wife shown as boy last year,” “boy paid as girl last year,” and “boy now a man formerly ran as a girl.” Clothing, hair, footwear, and personal décor did not differentiate men from women in the way that Euro-Canadians were accustomed to. Qu’Appelle storekeeper Edward J. Brooks wrote in a 1882 letter to his wife-to-be that “I saw a couple of pure blooded Indians down at the station a couple of days ago and could not tell whether both were Squaws or not but finally made up my mind that they were man and wife. They were both dressed as nearly alike as possible, had long braided hair, wore lots of jewellery and had their faces painted with Vermillion paint.” An English visitor to Western Canada named Edward Roper wrote in his 1891 book that “most of us found it almost impossible to tell the young men and women apart; they were exactly alike in face [the men had no ‘beards or whiskers’], and being generally enveloped in blankets the difficulty increased.” All wore similar beautifully decorated moccasins, bangles, and earrings, Roper wrote.
In Plains societies there were women who did not marry and pursued activities mostly associated with men. They hunted buffalo and went to war. An informant to Goldfrank described a woman warrior who was treated as a true leader. She was renowned for acts of bravery such as going into an enemy’s tipi and taking headdresses from behind the bed. “She used to leave her legging at the enemy camp and they would say ‘that woman has been here again.’ She always slept alone, while the men remained in camp. She would sleep on top of the hill and she sang a song. The next day she would know where to lead the party.” This may have been the warrior another informant identified as “Trim Woman,” saying that “that kind of woman is always respected and everyone depends on them. They are admired for their bravery. They are ‘lucky’ on raids and so the men respect them.” Another Kainai woman, Empty Coulee, had a story similar to Trim Woman’s, but she had more courage, killing enemies and capturing guns, while Trim Woman only captured horses. After she became expert in raiding she changed her name to Running Eagle, a man’s name. She wore women’s clothing, but she “got respect as a ‘real man.’ She never married.
Some of the women who took on “manly” roles were married. In the book Five Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri, Edwin Thompson Denig, a fur trader during the years 1833 and 1856, described a Gros Ventre woman who was a respected warrior, negotiator and hunter, and who was regarded as the third-ranked chief of her band. She had a wife. Denig wrote, “Strange country this, where males assume the dress and perform the duties of females, while women turn men and made with their own sex.” There were also married women who participated in “manly” activities with their husbands. A Kainai woman named Elk-Yells-in-the-Water went on several war raids with her husband. She gave her adopted mother a horse she captured when she accompanied her husband on a war raid.
The “manly-hearted women” of the Blackfoot excelled at feminine occupations, had the finest (women’s) clothing, and were always married, often several times, and had children. But they also displayed characteristics classified as “masculine”: they were aggressive, independent, bold, and sexually forward. As Esther Goldfrank wrote, “the essential pattern of their lives always remained safely within the framework set for women as a sex,” but a manly-hearted woman would “make advances in affairs of the heart; she may refuse to marry the man of her father’s choice; she will marry in her own time, and she will not hesitate to beat off an irate husband. She is usually an excellent worker. This as well as her passionate response to love make her a desirable mate despite her wilfulness and domineering ways.”
There were also biological males who lived as women, many of whom married men. One Kainai named Pidgeon Woman, who was biologically male, “from babyhood until death… lived a female life – like a widow – no husband – used female expressions,” according to Goldfrank’s notes. Informants to the Hanks described two men who acted like women, had husbands, and did women’s work. One of these “really acts like a woman. Dresses like a woman, has bracelets up to his elbows, rings on fingers and had a husband. He made clothes and tanned hides like other women.” Another dressed and acted as a woman “from the start,” and he played with girls. His father and mother “were not shy about the way he was acting; all family knew he was a boy.” He “looked like a good looking woman” and was married several times. One man who dressed and acted as a woman was a renowned warrior who “sewed moccasins better than any woman, made buckskin suits and beaded blankets better than any woman.” He went on highly successful expeditions against the enemy Cree and Crow dressed as a woman. He had a devoted husband and was described as the only wife of the man. In his narrative of his many years spent among the Plains Saulteaux of southern Manitoba, John Tanner wrote about the son of a celebrated chief who was “one of those who make themselves women, and are called women by the Indians.” She (Tanner’s pronoun) had several husbands in the past and wanted to marry Tanner. When he refused, another man with two wives married her. When asked how they got married “if everyone knew they were not women,” a Hanks informant said, “No one said anything. Husbands knew and got them for wives. They knew but didn’t care if he was not a woman. Why have a woman like this? These husbands knew they were good at tipi and bead work. That is how they made up their mind. In every way they treated these men just like other women.”
“Two Spirits” were believed to have special gifts among Plains societies. Manitoba Dakota Elder Eva McKay explained, “they were special in the way that they seemed to have more skills than a single man or a single woman… He is two persons, this is when people would say they have more power than a single person. They were treated with respect.”
Note on terminology: in Canada, it is generally no longer considered entirely acceptable to refer to an individual as an “Indian”, as it is considered a pejorative term. “Squaw” has similar associations to the word “Negro” in the United States, and should generally be avoided unless quoting a historical source. There are lots of debates surrounding the most appropriate terminology; some natives themselves prefer the term “Indian” (arguing, basically, that hey, if I’ve been an Indian my whole life you can’t just tell me I’m not all of a sudden), but most, I’m told, dislike it. Other terms more frequently used are “aboriginal” (not to be confused with “aborigine”, which is an Australian term which is also considered pejorative), “native”, “first nations”, etc. When in doubt, the best thing to do is refer to them by their original tribe name, i.e., the Inuit, the Mi’kmaq, the Cree, the Piikani, etc. You wouldn’t want to lump everyone together in any case; generalizations like “all Europeans believe X” are probably inherently wrong anyway. The same should be said of the vastly diverse cultural groups that exist in the Americas.
(I’ll get off of my soapbox now. >_> I just got a little bit angry when elderly American tourists called me a “squaw” a few times this summer. Once I had a really old man look at me, raise his hand, and say “How!” and call me a squaw. He then proceeded to look extremely pleased by himself, like he had remembered the proper way to greet me or something. :\ I almost broke down when less than thirty seconds later his wife followed him and tugged on my braids to see if they were real, without so much as a by-your-leave. :P )
If anybody is interested in learning more on this subject, I can natter on for ages, so don't hesitate to ask questions! Is it spelt “Piegan” or "Peigan”? (Quick answer: both! Depends on what side of the border you’re on!) Why do the Blackfoot and the Cree hate each other so much? What is an Indian agent? How did plains marriage ceremonies work? How common was scalping, really?
Also, I did neglect to put in the footnotes when I transcribed this passage, so if anybody wants more information about the sources for the above text, don’t hesitate to ask! :)
no subject
Thank you very much for transcribing this. It's very interesting, and definitely gives me some stuff to chew over. Do you have any other recommendations for books on the First Nations of Canada or the USA?
(Also, I hope someone besides me uses this for WT fanfic.)
no subject
Other than the book mentioned in this blog post... Hmm... I have a really good illustrated history sitting on my desk in the Honour's Room at University, but I'm at home at the moment and I can't remember the title or author off of the top of my head. I'll get back to you on that in a day or two, if you like.
For a history of the Canadian fur trade and some of the more positive aboriginal - Euro-Canadian interactions in general, "The Blanket: An Illustrated History of the Hudson's Bay Point Blanket" by Harold Tichenor is quite good. http://furtrade.org/estore/images/Blanket_The_HBC[1].jpg
I'm currently reading this really interesting biography of a Metis translator who worked during the last years of the fur trade, but he was also the interpreter at the notorious Numbered Treaties with the Canadian government in the 1870s and 1880s... It's called "Jemmy Jock Bird: Marginal Man on the Blackfoot Frontier" by John C. Jackson, and it's quite a good read.
As for more native history and not Metis history... there are loads of really good articles online. Unfortunately, most of the databases you have to pay to subscribe to; I get them through my university student fees. Peel's Prairie Provinces (http://peel.library.ualberta.ca/index.html) is a great resource for primary documents, run by my own university, too. It has the advantage of being free, unlike many other digital archives. It has loads of digitized images (including a section on early postcards!) alongside full-text scans.
If you're interested in the Inuit and other northern tribes (presumably, if you want to use it for Water Tribe references), I'd recommend books by Farley Mowat. He's a Canadian icon and author, and he's most famous for living amongst the Inuit for a length of time. I've only read bits of one of his latest books, "No Man's River", but I loved it. These texts occupy a strange space between non-fiction and fiction, because much of them are based on what he experienced or stories he was told in person at a time when many of these elders were disappearing. Also, he may have dramatized a few things. Still, very good to get more of an authentic "feel" of the culture and environment. (Just don't take everything he says as fact.)
Hmm... I can't think of more off of the top of my head. I don't know as much about native history in the U.S., mostly because it's very depressing and isn't frequently discussed in American history courses. I did write a paper last year for a native history course and I'll try to dig up good stuff from the bibliography for you, but I've misplaced the memory stick I put it on when I was clearing out my harddrive over the summer. I'll find it later. I think I've given you a start, anyway. ;)
no subject
no subject
no subject
An Illustrated History of Canada's Native Peoples: I have lived here since the world began by Arthur J. Ray. It's a bit pricey at $39.95 Canadian or so, but I think it's worth it.
Granted, I've only read bits and pieces of it so far, but from skimming it and comparing it with other books I've read on the subject (including the assigned textbook for a native history class), I really like it. For one, unlike many other Canadian history textbooks, it actually mentions more than five native people by name. Too often, beyond people like Tecumseh and Pocahontas (why is she so famous?? Is it all because of Disney and John Smith being a self-promoter?) they only talk about "the Iroquois" or "the Blackfoot" as one large group. If they talk about the history of individual tribes at all, most books just talk about the skirmishes they had with white folks, or the influence of certain missionaries, or how many died of smallpox or what have you. This book seems to go beyond that. <3
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I know very, VERY little about Native American (the modern accepted US term) history. What I know is a combination of unspeakably awesome (their traditions/belief systems/use of the land) and then way too sad for pleasure reading (enter the colonists). My elementary/middle/high schools didn't do a thing right by that entire culture, so I learned on my own.
In sixth grade, our history book had the example that of course we should dig up Native American burial grounds over the protests of living descendants, because we would learn so many amazing things. I was the only person in class that disagreed, and I actually shut my teacher down. (I started out shy, but I did NOT tolerate people being unfair.) I very politely pointed out that by his logic, we should also dig up the cemeteries of the first colonists. He tried to fight me on that point, then he realized that he'd have to say something like "Native American burial grounds aren't consecrated like proper Christian-y ones." So he didn't and he conceded the point.
Americans tend to NOT think about Native populations, or to think that they're gone/dying/invisible/vanishing. When they do have any interaction, it's generally in school (VERY simplified, focusing on "quaint" traditions and longhouses), at touristified little outposts (where one very, VERY awesome young man did a ring dance in Wyoming and talked to me after about what it meant), in Westerns (um, yeah), or The Stereotype as people fuss about alcoholism etc. I wouldn't say that all Americans fit that stereotype of just not caring, but way, way too many do.
no subject
Among other very interesting things, Leah gives Jasper a reading list of Native American books while he tries to understand her and what she has against him and his family.
no subject
no subject
I've actually been trying to read my way through the list Leah gave to Jasper. Slowly, but it's been interesting.
no subject
no subject
Not from Leah's list, but there's two Amerind-authored books in this review post.
no subject
She had a few specific things mentioned for X-men. She changed one character's last name because the comic naming was getting way too derivative, she played up the background for Cyclops... it was awesome. Most authors Don't Go There for fear of getting something wrong, so it's awesome to watch somebody nail it.
I haven't actually written a Native American character, now that I think about it. I generally write fanfic and none of my fandoms of choice have left that as an option. My biggest stretches for "how can I understand this character" don't tend to come out of race or gender. I have more of a problem understanding people with a very different value set/moral code/anything like that, because it's a lot harder to rearrange how I think.
no subject
Hmm. I don't think I've ever written any explicitly Native American characters either. Of course, most of my writing in the last five years has been either for Transformers (where the focus is on the alien robots) or Avatar: the Last Airbender (which has Characters of Color, but which is not an Earth-type world. So writing the Water Tribe as like various First Nations peoples doesn't feel like it has the same level of potential minefield-ness of writing about actual First Nations people.)
I have more of a problem understanding people with a very different value set/moral code/anything like that, because it's a lot harder to rearrange how I think.
Heh. I can definitely say I don't have that problem. It's fairly easy for me to compartmentalize myself from the characters I write - what they believe is not what I believe and vice-versa.
Oh, randomly, for a combination of vampires and Native Americans, I love "The Night Wanderer: A Native Gothic Novel" by Drew Hayden Taylor.
no subject
OMG I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND! I rec her stuff all the time, and people usually go "huh"? Yeah. I read Grail first when I stumbled on it at fanfic.net, then I read Special, then I read everything she had posted. I lost track somewhere in the middle of Dulce et Decorum Est (Aorist Subjunctive was FUN), and Climb the Wind is still one of my favorite stories ever for the full spectrum that it covers. (When I commented on avocado_love's story to say she was the second person that wrote a sexual assault well, the other was Minisinoo. I do sex assault advocacy work, and going back I was amazed at just how many things that she had covered.)
"Hmm. I don't think I've ever written any explicitly Native American characters either. Of course, most of my writing in the last five years has been either for Transformers (where the focus is on the alien robots) or Avatar: the Last Airbender (which has Characters of Color, but which is not an Earth-type world. So writing the Water Tribe as like various First Nations peoples doesn't feel like it has the same level of potential minefield-ness of writing about actual First Nations people.)"
I was very careful the first time that I was writing a black male character. I was a sophomore in high school and not remotely convinced that I had any idea of what he would think about the world, and my high school was not all that diverse. College made me much, much happier about "sure, let's give that background a spin."
"Heh. I can definitely say I don't have that problem. It's fairly easy for me to compartmentalize myself from the characters I write - what they believe is not what I believe and vice-versa."
I have that part down, really, but sometimes my brain can't quite fit it all into place. I usually need to be in the right mood to get my villains properly nasty. Some series that I like have REALLY nasty baddies running around, and coming up with suitably diabolical plots is odd. I have a different approach entirely for "how to cause the most possible damage" that doesn't line up with current villains. The medical view is a lot different than the political/demolitionist version.
no subject
I was lucky enough to have received a decent beginner rundown of some native history when I was in junior high. I was in French immersion, so we spoke a lot about the history of New France. French colonists famously got along (or so it is said) with the Huron, until, of course, the Iroquois came and "destroyed" Huronia (no other verb is every used: always "destroy"). Therefore, we at last learned about the Huron, the Iroquois Confederacy, and other nearby tribes until the 1700s.
"I very politely pointed out that by his logic, we should also dig up the cemeteries of the first colonists. He tried to fight me on that point, then he realized that he'd have to say something like "Native American burial grounds aren't consecrated like proper Christian-y ones."" Oh man, I applaud you on that point. :) Very good! *astral plane high five* That reminds me of a story I learned in an East Asian history class: almost everything that the Japanese know about the tombs of the emperor's ancestors, archaeologically-wise, is known not because of digs done on the actual Japanese tombs, but because they dug up culturally similar tombs from identical time periods in KOREA, during the Second World War when Japan was occupying bits of the mainland. You see, they can't actually dig up tombs in Japan itself because the current Japanese emperor is from an unbroken line: therefore, he wouldn't be following the essential concept of filial piety, in allowing the tombs of his ancestors to be desecrated. So they had to desecrate the tombs of other people instead.
"I wouldn't say that all Americans fit that stereotype of just not caring, but way, way too many do." I agree. :( I think it's a LITTLE bit better in Canada - at the very least we make a point of doing things like including the "four host first nations" in the Olympic festivities ( and such, but... yeah. A big part of what I do at Fort Edmonton every day is to counter such stereotypes. (Although it is kind of awkward at times because I am a white person pretending to have native ancestry. I portray a Metis person, who is half and half, but still... I generally say that my mother was Metis too, making me 3/4 white, and I mean, there are status Metis who are blond and blue-eyed, but it's still awkward at times. I don't lie about my ancestry if people ask, though. I pass most of the time, and I know to be respectful, but still.
no subject
French colonists were more chill than English colonists at the very least. Little schoolchildren all across America are taught that the Pilgrims and the... er... I think it might be Pottawotamee (terrible spelling) Native Americans, but it's been ages. We do hear about Squanto, but school glosses over that he spoke English because he'd been previously taken as a slave. The English settlers were not remotely prepared for life here, and to repay the favor of surviving the first winter/couple years they decided to take it ALL.
Y'know. Because it was God-ordained to go murder a whole hell of a lot of people, including women and children, after intruding on their land. People + religion way too often ends up with "tragic result that they've already justified away."
"Oh man, I applaud you on that point. :) Very good! *astral plane high five* That reminds me of a story I learned in an East Asian history class: almost everything that the Japanese know about the tombs of the emperor's ancestors, archaeologically-wise, is known not because of digs done on the actual Japanese tombs, but because they dug up culturally similar tombs from identical time periods in KOREA, during the Second World War when Japan was occupying bits of the mainland. You see, they can't actually dig up tombs in Japan itself because the current Japanese emperor is from an unbroken line: therefore, he wouldn't be following the essential concept of filial piety, in allowing the tombs of his ancestors to be desecrated. So they had to desecrate the tombs of other people instead."
Forsure. Can you imagine the reaction if Egyptian folks strolled into Westminster Abbey and started excavating tombs? My roomie the anthropologist falls prey to the "but it's for science" thing. She seems to think we should go study the last tribe untouched by modern civilization because it's there and we should know about it. (I hadn't known there WAS a civilization still out there. Bordering tribes have warned a few scientific expeditions back so that the area stays cool.)
" agree. :( I think it's a LITTLE bit better in Canada - at the very least we make a point of doing things like including the "four host first nations" in the Olympic festivities ( and such, but... yeah. A big part of what I do at Fort Edmonton every day is to counter such stereotypes. (Although it is kind of awkward at times because I am a white person pretending to have native ancestry. I portray a Metis person, who is half and half, but still... I generally say that my mother was Metis too, making me 3/4 white, and I mean, there are status Metis who are blond and blue-eyed, but it's still awkward at times. I don't lie about my ancestry if people ask, though. I pass most of the time, and I know to be respectful, but still."
Canada has health care, at least? In America, people are religious so long as it suits their true moral fiber of capitalism. They can thump their Bible all day long, but heaven help you if you want them to contribute to feeding/helping/aiding the poor.
no subject
You are simplifying a hell of a lot there and ignoring all the good religions have done. Please don't.
no subject
I'm simplifying, yes, but I was speaking in the context of the use of religious justifications in American politics. I was also being a pessimist. It was never meant to be a blanket condemnation of religion. "People sometimes use religious justifications for immoral actions" is the better way to phrase what I was trying to say.
no subject
"We do hear about Squanto, but school glosses over that he spoke English because he'd been previously taken as a slave. The English settlers were not remotely prepared for life here, and to repay the favor of surviving the first winter/couple years they decided to take it ALL." I've never actually heard of Squanto! Who was he?
We learn about people like Shanawdithit, the last of the Beothuk. Hers is a depressing story. It actually reminds me a lot of the stories you hear about the last Tasmanian Tiger: people knew about the last one, but too late to be of any actual help.
I've recently learned a lot about the native politics of the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Um, I'm on the side of the British in all of this. Sure, American settlers want more land for farming (and it was kind of Britain's fault for not preventing certain rich people back in Britain from tossing peasants off their land to make way for sheep, which were more profitable than people), but on the other hand it was the rich, pompous Brits that were actually protecting the "underdog" in this case: the natives. So when the Americans achieved independence... the natives of the East Coast suffered. A lot. Now I'm not sure what would have happened had the British actually kept control of their colonies in North America, but still! (Also, P.S.: We still totally won the war of 1812. ;) )
"Can you imagine the reaction if Egyptian folks strolled into Westminster Abbey and started excavating tombs? My roomie the anthropologist falls prey to the "but it's for science" thing. She seems to think we should go study the last tribe untouched by modern civilization because it's there and we should know about it." There are a few kicking around! Very few. Not many. Yeah, I'm still suspicious of the "It's for science!" argument. :P I mean, at least with doing older history there's less chance of someone taking issue with how you're portraying someone... but then again, historians have gotten death threats for unconvering evidence that a certain tribe (of which there were many members still living) once practiced ritual cannibalism, or, most famously, that one woman who all but proved that Thomas Jefferson did have a longstanding relationship with Sally Hemmings, a black mistress (possibly a loving relationship, if such a thing is possible when one of the parties is a slave and sixteen). Historians can get under people's skins.
"Canada has health care, at least?" Yeah, but if you're on a native reserve out in the middle of the wilderness (and there's generally financial incentive for you to stay there) good luck getting proper health care or education. It's not the best situation.
no subject
Squanto... I haven't heard this story in years, so it's muddled. He was in England as a slave, I think, but he ended up back at home later. He was the only Native American that spoke English, so he could translate. People were pretty chill at first. The English style of farming epic-failed in America, so they used the Native American methods, but elementary school stories didn't mention what happened when relations went sour. He usually comes up a paragraph before Pocahontas.
"I've recently learned a lot about the native politics of the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Um, I'm on the side of the British in all of this. Sure, American settlers want more land for farming (and it was kind of Britain's fault for not preventing certain rich people back in Britain from tossing peasants off their land to make way for sheep, which were more profitable than people), but on the other hand it was the rich, pompous Brits that were actually protecting the "underdog" in this case: the natives. So when the Americans achieved independence... the natives of the East Coast suffered. A lot. Now I'm not sure what would have happened had the British actually kept control of their colonies in North America, but still! (Also, P.S.: We still totally won the war of 1812. ;) )"
Americans tend to think the Overture of 1812 is about us. I routinely have to correct them at fireworks shows.
"There are a few kicking around! Very few. Not many. Yeah, I'm still suspicious of the "It's for science!" argument. :P I mean, at least with doing older history there's less chance of someone taking issue with how you're portraying someone... but then again, historians have gotten death threats for unconvering evidence that a certain tribe (of which there were many members still living) once practiced ritual cannibalism, or, most famously, that one woman who all but proved that Thomas Jefferson did have a longstanding relationship with Sally Hemmings, a black mistress (possibly a loving relationship, if such a thing is possible when one of the parties is a slave and sixteen). Historians can get under people's skins."
Historians keep finding the TRUTH when people would much prefer the nice pretty history people have imagined. I still come down against doing some full-out analysis on current cultures that don't want to be studied. If there's a tribe that doesn't want that kind of contact, then leave.
My prof one semester took us through a full history of psychiatry. It's not a pretty place.
" Yeah, but if you're on a native reserve out in the middle of the wilderness (and there's generally financial incentive for you to stay there) good luck getting proper health care or education. It's not the best situation." No, it isn't. Health care in American reservations is not usually any better.
no subject
"Americans tend to think the Overture of 1812 is about us. I routinely have to correct them at fireworks shows." Lol that's hilarious. XD
"Historians keep finding the TRUTH when people would much prefer the nice pretty history people have imagined. I still come down against doing some full-out analysis on current cultures that don't want to be studied. If there's a tribe that doesn't want that kind of contact, then leave." PRECISELY.
"My prof one semester took us through a full history of psychiatry. It's not a pretty place." I listened to a historian at a guest lecture talk about eugenics for an hour. It was horrifying. I swear I had the D: face on for at least a third of the presentation.
no subject
A lot people get really, really pissy about the 1812 Overture, too. "War of 1812" and "they play it all the time at fourth of July" mean that obviously it couldn't possibly be for a Russian occasion.
I get very, very pissed when anthropologists feel entitled to study whatever they damn well please because it's there. That's fine when it's proteins in cell cultures, have a blast. It's quite a bit different when your research involves people as the subjects.
no subject
"I get very, very pissed when anthropologists feel entitled to study whatever they damn well please because it's there. That's fine when it's proteins in cell cultures, have a blast. It's quite a bit different when your research involves people as the subjects." Exactly! I mean, how would you feel if anthropologists invaded your home and started watching your every move, taking notes? It would definitely throw you off your game. I don't care if I'm an anonymous number in your data: I wouldn't want to be a number in the first place. :P
no subject
"Exactly! I mean, how would you feel if anthropologists invaded your home and started watching your every move, taking notes? It would definitely throw you off your game. I don't care if I'm an anonymous number in your data: I wouldn't want to be a number in the first place. :P "
I'm a contrary, contrary woman, so... I'd probably start the time-honored act of Making Shit Up like I was living in a neverending Seinfeld episode.
no subject
no subject
I'd also go buy random things to place in an impromptu shrine, create ridiculous and inconvenient customs for any who are not seen as Blessed in (random created deity's) Sight, and give my children bribes for creating new ways to haze the anthropologists intruding on our home. If they're going to be in a world that's one step up from a reality show, they're at least going to be creative about it.
no subject
Oh fo' sho'! ;) I'm sure you could whip up a few "traditional recipes" for feeding the friendly anthropologists, too... ;)
no subject