Showing posts with label Native Americans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Native Americans. Show all posts

Monday, October 3, 2011

DEHUMANIZING NATIVE AMERICANS

DEHUMANIZING NATIVE AMERICANS

The names Americans use for many American Indian tribes are derogatory. European Americans often learned what to call one tribe from a neighboring rival tribe. Sometimes whites simply developed their own contemptuous names for groups of Native people. Markers in Arizona are full of these wrong names. Some Native groups have responded to this confusion by accepting their new name even if it originally had negative connotations. Others are mounting determined efforts to be known by the name they call themselves. Arizona offers examples of both.

NAVAJO INDIANS: BARBONCITO - CHIEF OF THE NAVAJO TRIBE IN NEW MEXICO
By far the largest and most populous Indian reservation in the United States is the Navajo reservation, which occupies all of northeastern Arizona and extends into Utah and New Mexico. Navajo is the name given to these once nomadic people by the already-settled Tewa Pueblo Indians. 1 It may mean "thieves" or "takers from the fields." The Navajos came to the Southwest millennia after the Tewas and call themselves Dine, sometimes spelled Dineh, which means "we the people." 2 Most Native American groups call themselves by names that mean "we the people." Like most societies they were ethnocentric - seeing their own culture as the yardstick of sound human behavior - and these names reflect that certainty.

Tewa Pueblo Indian

The name of another famous Arizona tribe, Apaches, means "enemies." The Zunis named them that. Related linguistically to the Navajos, Apaches too call themselves Dine. In southern Arizona, Papagos means "bean eaters," a name given by the nearby Pimas. Papagos call themselves Tohono O'Otam, or "desert people." Pimas, another southern Arizona tribe, refer to themselves as Ahkeemult O'odham or "river people." "Pima" actually means "I don't know," apparently their reply when asked their name in Spanish by an early explorer!

"Tohono O'odham Woman" circa 1905

Americans have learned to call the people who built the ancient cliff dwellings at Canyon de Chelly in Arizona "the Anasazi." Anasazi is a Navajo word meaning "ancient enemies." Since the Anasazis have "vanished" according to anthropologists, we cannot now ask them what they called themselves. In reality the Anasazi didn't "vanish" but merged into the various pueblo peoples whose descendants still live in Arizona and New Mexico. Most Pueblo Indians prefer to call the Anasazi "ancestral Puebloans" and still know which pueblo includes descendants from which "Anasazi" site.


Inuit

The use of derogatory names is hardly limited to Arizona. Native people living in far northern Canada and Alaska call themselves Inuit - again, "we the people" - while the Crees to their southeast called them Eskimos, "those who eat raw flesh." The Sioux call themselves Dakotas or Lakotas, meaning "allies" or "people," but their ancient enemies, the Ojibwes, called them Nadouwesioux, meaning "little snakes" or "enemies," and the French shortened it to Sioux. In turn, Ojibwes, sometimes written Chippewas, refer to themselves as Anishinabes, "people of the creation." "Mohawk" means "cannibal" in Algonquian; they call themselves "Kaniengehagas," "people of the place of flint."

Salish

Some names take note of physical characteristics of Natives. Thus British Americans called the Salish ("we the people") the Flathead Indians. The French called two groups of Indians "Gros Ventres," "big bellies," apparently derived from their name in Indian sign language. The French also renamed the Nimipus ("we the people") the Nez Perces, "pierced noses," because some of them wore nose pendants.

The Delaware Indians (Lenni Lenape)

A few names were complimentary. On the east coast the British renamed the Lenape "Delawares." They didn't mind once the British explained that Lord De La Ware was a brave military leader. Lenape means - you guessed it - "we the people." 3 The most famous new name of all - "Indians," coined by Columbus for the Arawaks he met in the Caribbean - was complimentary in a sense: Columbus either thought he was in the East Indies or hoped to convince his supporters that he had reached that important trading destination by using the term. 4

Some whites claim that their practice of naming sports teams for Native Americans is complimentary. Thus we have the Florida State University Seminoles, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and worst of all, Washington Redskins. Some Indians do consider some of these terms flattering.

The Cleveland Indians defend their name on that basis, claiming it stems from a popular member of the team in the 1890s. "Chief Wahoo," the bucktooth Indian caricature that decorates Cleveland uniforms, offends many Native Americans today however. And Native American newspapers continue to react angrily to the "Washington Redskins." How long would Americans tolerate the "Atlanta Niggers," they ask? Or the "New York Kikes?" Even positive terms like "braves" trivialize Native Americans as mascots, some Indians assert.

"Hopi" means "peaceful ones."

At least two tribes in Arizona are called by their own names. "Havasupai" means "people of the blue-green waters," referring to their homeland's beautiful waterfalls in a side gorge of the Grand Canyon, and "Hopi" means "peaceful ones." Some other Arizona Indians have given in to the renaming. Apaches now acquiesce to being called "Apaches." Many Navajos accept "Navajo" rather than insisting on "Dine." Many Pimas now call themselves Pimas. Papagos, however, are making a concerted effort to be known as Tohono O'otam.


In Minnesota some Ojibwes now ask others to call them Anishinabes. Throughout the world, naming has been a prerogative of power. With colonialism on the wane, calling natives by the name they use for themselves is gradually becoming accepted practice. Thus when leaders in Upper Volta changed its name to Burkino Faso, mapmakers had to make the adjustment. 5 Native Americans who care may win similar respect in coming years. (source: World Free Internet)

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Chapter 2: The First Slaves



Out of a swampy thicket, near the blue waters of Long Island Sound, 200 old men, women and children stepped into the bright sunshine and entered a new world.

Hundreds of edgy soldiers, mustered from villages and farms across Connecticut, had finally surrounded the Pequots and their leader, Sassacus.

It was July 13, 1637, a critical day in the Pequot War that had consumed Puritan Connecticut for several years. Six weeks before, in a key victory for the colonists, Capt. John Mason had led a massacre at the Pequot fort in Mystic, killing as many as 700 Indians in a single hour.

attack on the Pequot fort at Mystic

This summer afternoon was a jubilant one for the Puritans and their Mohegan scouts who had cornered these "most terrible" Pequots. A new chapter in American history was about to begin: Indian enslavement in Colonial America.

Among the Pequots caught in the bog in what's now part of Fairfield, a group of perhaps 17, mostly children, were thought to have been exported as slaves. Others were handed out to soldiers as wartime booty. Historians believe these 17 Pequots later ended up on an island off Nicaragua. Like many of the Indian slaves sent from America over the next century, there is little record of what happened to them.


Barely five years after their first recorded contact with Europeans, this final battle of the bloody Pequot War conclusively finished a doomed experiment by Indians and Puritans to live side by side. By the time the Treaty of Hartford was signed the following September, formally ending the war, the English had killed or enslaved more than 1,500 Pequot men, women and children, scholars believe.

During the uneasy decades that followed, as the Puritans pushed deeper into Indian country and their numbers swelled, it was difficult to travel through Connecticut, Massachusetts or Rhode Island and not encounter an Indian slave, working in a field, orchard or boatyard.

By the end of the 1600s, there were probably thousands of Indian slaves, many of them servants in homes and on farms. It would become, in the words of Roger Williams, a founder of Brown University, an essential component of "the Unnecessary Warrs and cruell Destructions of the Indians in New England."

In Connecticut and throughout New England, where, 350 years later, descendants of Indians and Europeans still have an uneasy relationship, Indian slavery remains a rarely recited part of our history.

Wampanoag, longhouse

"There are a lot of things that people in America don't have any idea about,"' said Everett "Tall Oak" Weeden, an Indian historian who shares both Pequot and Wampanoag ancestry. "History has been sanitized."


The Indians `have their eyes fixed upon us'

A primal fear of Indians, a desperate shortage of labor, a biblical sense of entitlement - these forces coalesced, leading to the enslavement of the Native Americans in southern New England in the 1600s. The colonists ultimately thought of the conflict as the "civilized" English against the "savage" natives.

"Partly it's social control. But they also want the labor. People wanted household servants," said Margaret Newell, a professor at Ohio State University who is writing a book on Indian slavery.

In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and to a lesser extent in Connecticut, Newell said, "You would find [Indian] women working as domestic servants, taking care of children. You would find men working as farm laborers, drivers. You would find children taking care of livestock."

For some Indians, servitude lasted only until age 24. But others were bound to masters for indefinite periods. Indian slaves and household servants appear on census rolls and court records well into the 18th century.

This was a time of growing divisions and bloody violence between the native populations and the Puritans. As the colonists sought to settle in to their new home in America, there were conflicts, small and large, all over. It was a time of murdered women and children, of severed limbs and smashed corpses, when it was not uncommon to see Indian and English heads mounted on stakes, wigwams burned and frontier farms devastated.

For many Indians, Mason's brutal Pequot massacre and others after it remained fresh. For the colonists, the scalpings and mutilations, which included flayings and torture, seemed too monstrous for any true Englishman to ever accept.

By the beginning of King Philip's War in 1675, when Indians attacked and destroyed town after town in New England, it would be difficult to overestimate the fear English colonists felt as they sought to conquer and subdue New England. After a string of stunningly successful Indian attacks at the start of the conflict, Puritans were well aware that "all the Indians have their eyes fixed upon us."

Thousands of English and Indians would perish in the bloody two-year conflict, named for a regal Wampanoag sachem, or chief, whose father, Massasoit, sat with the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving feast. By the end of 1675, it was full-scale battle across New England.

"Many of our miserable inhabitants lye naked, wallowing in their blood, and crying, and whilst the Barbarous enraged Natives, from one part of the Country to another are in Fire, flaming their fury, Spoiling Cattle and Corn and burning Houses and torturing Men, Women and Children," wrote one unidentified colonist, quoted in historian Jill Lepore's revealing 1998 book, "The Name of War."

The Indian threat "strained even the most eloquent colonists' powers of description," Lepore writes of a time early in the war when Indians nearly drove the Puritans from New England's interior.

"I was so struck by how strident and how fearful these people were," University of Connecticut anthropologist Kevin McBride said of his research into Indians and Puritans of the 1600s. "These guys must have been panicked."

Enslaving the problems


As the 17th century wore on, and colonists grew to outnumber natives in New England by about 2 to 1, Indians were increasingly pursued. A systematic divvying up of captives from the many Connecticut tribes emerged. The colonists originally focused on the more warlike Pequots, but soon members of the Narragansetts, Nipmucks and Wampanoags were also enslaved.

"The general court appointed certain persons in each county to receive and distribute these Indian children proportionately, and to see that they were sold to good families," wrote Almon W. Lauber in his 1913 book, "Indian Slavery in Colonial Times."

"The custom of enslavement came from the necessity of disposing of war captives, from the greed of traders and from the demand for labor," explained Lauber, whose book is still considered an essential reference.

Captured Indian warriors were frequently executed - or shipped to slave markets around the world. By the time King Philip's War began, Indian slaves, often women and children, were a common sight across southern New England.

From Newport, R.I., to Portsmouth, N.H., Indians came to public auction, "tied neck to neck," and sold for half of what an African might bring.

A 7-year-old girl was toted to Connecticut from a battle in Massachusetts, a spoil of war who was handy around the house. At times, there were so many captured Indians available that a few bushels of corn or 100 pounds of wool sufficed for payment. A New London man left "an Indian maidservant" as part of his estate. Another, a farmer and businessman from the New London area, kept a careful diary noting how common Indian slaves were on the farms and in the homes of southeastern Connecticut.

And on sailing ships, bound for the slave markets in Europe, Africa, the Caribbean and the Azores, Indians were packed away tightly by the profiteers, who kidnapped or bought them wholesale from Colonial authorities eager to finance an increasingly costly war against the Indians.

Indians who surrendered were treated only slightly more gently in the colony, with the Connecticut General Court ordering children sold as indentured servants for 10-year terms, though some would be slaves far longer if they got into legal trouble in Puritan courts.

A note left by attacking Nipmuck Indians after the plundering of Medfield, Mass., in February 1676 reveals much about the time: "We have nothing but our lives to loose but thou has many fair houses and cattell & much good things."

The rewards of war

In the fall of 1676 the sailing ship Seaflower departed Boston Harbor for the Caribbean, its cargo hold filled with nearly 200 "heathen Malefactors men, women and children" sentenced to "Perpetuall Servitude & slavery."

As Lepore recounts in her book - one of the few published scholarly examinations of Indian slavery - the sale and lucrative export of Indians had become by 1676 one of "the rewards of war" that replenished "coffers emptied by wartime expenses." Despite government efforts to regulate it, much of the trade was conducted illegally and ruthlessly.

The slave export began to heat up in 1675 and 1676, when captives from the rapidly expanding King Philip's War were filling New England cities, further frightening the English. Most of the Indians captured and exported out of New England were from Massachusetts, whose towns suffered the most from Indian attacks.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the colonists also found that adult Indian males who were kept as slaves made poor servants here. Mason said as much, when he wrote of captives from the Pequot War: "They could not endure that Yoke; few of them continuing any considerable time with their masters."

African-Indian intermarriage


Records of Indian slaves turn up well into the 18th century, but the practice faded rapidly in the 1700s, because of a growing market for African slaves and the widespread elimination of Indians and their culture. Scholars like Lepore also said that New England at this time began to see itself as a place that celebrated liberty and a growing anti-slavery movement.

Meanwhile, the eradication of Indian males through war, ravaging diseases and slavery led to significant intermarriage between native women and African males in the 18th century and beyond. Thus, as researchers like McBride and Newell note, the arrival of African slaves would help assure the survival of some Indian communities into the 21st century - while also setting the stage for some of the racial tension today.

Narragansett woman dressed up for a powwow

"Slavery really did have a devastating impact on the Native American population. Men were more likely to be exported. You had some tribes and populations where the ratio of women to men is completely out of whack," said Newell.

In the 20th century this would lead to tribes, such as the Narragansett and Pequots, with members who, to an outsider, look distinctly African American - but who nevertheless descend from historic New England tribes.

For many modern Indians in southern New England, slavery remains an essential and too-little-discussed element of their being, a chapter that must be acknowledged to understand the dynamics of today's often fragile relationship between Indians and non-Indians.

Back to the past


This year, on the 365th anniversary of the Fairfield "swamp fight" of 1637, "Tall Oak" Weeden and a delegation of Wampanoag Indians and Mashantucket Pequots went hunting for remnants of this forgotten slavery era.

Searching for clues, they traveled to St. David's Island in Bermuda. There they met with a small clan claiming to be descendants of New England Indian slaves shipped there centuries ago. Those who went came away convinced they had struck gold when they saw the faces, the dances and rituals of the St. David's Indians.

"I was struck by how much they looked like us," said Michael J. Thomas, a Mashantucket tribal leader who went on the Bermuda trip this past summer.

According to local legend, the wife and son of King Philip might have been among those on St. David's. After the king's death, his wife, Wootonekanuske, is said to have married an African man, preserving a genealogical line with Indians in New England.


The Pequots, flush with casino wealth and in the midst of their own 21st century resurgence, plan to dig even further into slavery's hidden history, Thomas said.

"What's to be learned is a more accurate perception of Colonial-era history," he said. "It helps people to understand our insecurities of today."

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Bureaucrat ripped hole in tapestry of Virginia's Indian history

From the Virginia Pilot, "Bureaucrat ripped hole in tapestry of Virginia's Indian history," by Joanne Kimberlin:
Tall and thin, with a neat mustache and white hair, Plecker was Virginia’s registrar of vital statistics from 1912 to 1946. He was the gatekeeper of birth, marriage and death records during the era of eugenics – a movement that combined bans on interracial marriage with the mandatory sterilization of the mentally ill.

The plan was to improve the human race by reducing what was viewed as defective breeding. Virginia was far from alone in its support of the “science”: In the early 1900s, interracial marriage was illegal in 30 of the then 48 states. Nazi Germany’s lethal persecution policies had roots in eugenics.

Virginia, however, had the distinction of being the first to outlaw interracial marriage – a law enacted in 1691 forbidding blacks and whites to marry.

The state’s 1924 Racial Integrity Act reinforced the old prohibitions and sought to clarify the dividing line. Anyone not matching the act’s definition of “white,” with “no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian,” was classified as “colored” – including the Indians.

Plecker, an icily efficient man who rarely smiled, carried out a campaign to make sure the vital records of Indians across the state reflected their new racial category.

Indians who refused the change risked a year in jail. Hospitals detained native newborns until parents signed birth certificates designating their child as black.

Natives say Plecker’s “paper genocide” created a gap in their history that makes it nearly impossible for them to prove that their tribes have existed “continuously” – one of the requirements of federal recognition.

Chief Walter D. “Red Hawk” Brown, III. The Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe, Southampton County Virginia is an Iroquoian-speaking Tribe
But R. Lee Fleming, a director at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, says Virginia tribes aren’t as short on records as they say. Contrary to popular belief, Fleming says, Plecker did not entirely obliterate their bloodline.

Fleming has a file that contains 16 Indian birth, death or marriage certificates from the Plecker era where the race was not altered.

“I just scratched the surface and found these,” he said. “I was certainly surprised. That’s not at all what I’d been hearing.”

Steve Adkins, chief of the Chickahominy, wasn’t shocked to hear that some records escaped Plecker’s purge, but he doesn’t think there are enough to clear federal hurdles: “You can find 16 vital records in any tribe that weren’t changed, but you’ll find 150 to 200 that had the wrong documentation.”

(source: The Virginian-Pilot, 10 June 2009, by Joanne Kimberlin)

Monday, May 23, 2011

Encomienda: Spanish Slavery in the New World

The Encomienda System was established in response to the colonists' need for Indian labour, but became the most destructive system in the history of Spanish America.

When the Spanish arrived in the New World, they brought with them a set of customs and traditions from their old Spain. One of the systems that were commonly practiced in Western Europe was forced labour. In Spain, this was knownas the Encomienda system. An encomienda was a means of providing a Spaniard a portion of land and restricted property rights over a certain number of Indians. The Encomienda system quickly became entrenched in South and Central America. Although it was implemented with the intention to care for and provide for the Native Americans, it became the most abusive and destructive system in colonial New Spain.

The Need to Indoctrinate and Instruct Natives in the Catholic Faith
The Spanish used religion to justify their domination over the Native Americans. The conquistadors maintained it was God’s will that they indoctrinate the Native Americans in the Catholic faith. Under the law of Burgos, any encomendero with more than fifty Natives had to educate one boy in writing and religious doctrine so that he could in turn, teach his people these things. “Some of the Native communities were even divided into territorial doctrinas or parishes with its own priest and church building where Indians would be instructed about the Christian faith,” says Michael Busbin. However, this method “quickly became an opportunity for the encomenderos to exploit and utilize the Indians for their own ends,” says Meredith Scott.

The Belief the Native Americans Were Incompetent

The need to Christianize the Natives was not the only reason for the Spanish to establish the encomienda system. The common belief that the Native Americans were savage and incompetent people unable to live a Christian life and conduct money and trade, fuelled the Spaniards’ desire to establish the encomienda system. Consequently, the Spaniards believed the Natives needed to be clothed, educated and taught about God. If they were left on their own, they would not cooperate with the Spaniards in matters of commerce, and so would ruin New Spain’s economy.

The Responsibility of Encomenderos

King Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain issued an order stating that all encomenderos were forbidden to mistreat the Natives. However, at the same time, they granted the encomenderos the right to persuade the natives to abandon their pagan religions and traditions.

Although the encomenderos were fully responsible for the Natives on their land, the Natives were granted to them for only two or three years at a time. The encomenderos were to pay the Natives a sum for their work and supply them with the provisions they needed to live. At one point, the Catholic Monarchs even encouraged intermarriage between the Spanish and the Natives as a way to completely assimilate the Natives into Spanish society.

Native Americans as a Source of Immediate Revenue

The Conquistadors, however, ignored the King and Queen’s commands. The Spanish colonists desired wealth without having to work for it. Every Spanish colonist that came to the New World expected to own land and have the natives do all the work for them. The natives were stripped of their rights because they were seen as a source of immediate revenue for the encomenderos.

The encomenderos demanded the natives pay them tribute in response to the provisions they gave them. The natives were forced to work night and day with very little to no pay in return. “This eventually led to the death of many already down-trodden Indians,” says Michael Busbin. In fact the abuse encomiendas inflicted on their Natives took place for several years and, consequently, led to a sharp decline in the Native population in Spanish America. It was not until the middle of the sixteenth century that the Spanish Crown would finally take action against the destruction that was being wrought upon the Natives at the hands of the Spanish colonists in its overseas colonies. (source: Latin America)

IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas

Gamble-Williams, an educator, artist and community activist, and her husband, Thunder Williams, of Afro-Carib ancestry from Trinidad and Tobago, have a radio show on D.C.’s WOL-AM Radio, called “The Talking Feather.” The show explores the history and culture of American Indians, blacks and and indigenous peoples from around the world.

“On our show, a lot of Afro-Native people were calling in, questioning why our story was not in the National Museum of the American Indian,” the Hyattsville, Md., resident said.

Later, the couple would attend a viewing of the documentary film, "Black Indians in America: An America Story," which affirmed “this identity issue started 500 years ago,” the radio host said. “When we met Louise Thundercloud, a Native woman with African ancestry, she said our story could not stop with the documentary, and we thought how we could have the story of black Indians told in the museum.”

The Williamses would put together a concept paper with a proposal to tell the story of the rich heritage forged from the relationship between American Indians and blacks and present it to NMAI'S community affairs department in early 2005. On Nov. 10, 2009, four years of work paid off with the opening of the exhibit, "IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas." The exhibit will run through May 2010. An opening symposium drew a standing-room-only audience.
Many in attendance felt that the story of the intersection and relationship of the two peoples was long overdue, although several books have attempted to tell the story of the historical connections between the two groups that began more than 500 years ago. The late educator Carter G. Woodson stated that it "is one of the longest unwritten chapters in the history of the United Sates."

Books like “Africans and Native Americans: The Language of Race and the Evolution of Red-Black Peoples” by Jack D. Forbes, pointed out that free Africans reached the shores of the Americas as traders and settlers long before Europeans brought African slaves to the Americas in chains. Noted scholar Dr. Ivan Sertima’s “They Came Before Columbus” argues that historical, archaeological and even botanical evidence shows proof of African contact with the New World in Pre-Columbian times.

More recent evidence depicts how the relationships become more complex with the institution of slavery and the Indian Wars that pitted black soldiers against Indian tribes. While documents show the intermarriage of blacks and American Indians, African-Native slave narratives tell the stories of slaves held captive by American Indian tribes. Other times, white settlers held both American Indians and blacks captive.

However, according to Rex Ellis, associate director for cultural affairs for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and a co-collaborator with NMAI, “While there has been excellent scholarship on the subject, the story of African-Native people is one that has not been fully explored in a wide public forum, until this exhibition. It is a story that while painful at times, needs to be told.
“African-Native Americans are inextricably bound, and they no longer wish to hide. Whatever the consequences, they want people to know who they are.”

For some like John W. Franklin, son of noted scholar John Hope Franklin, the exhibit is important “because our stories are shared. Our children need to see the overlap.” Franklin, director of partnerships and international programs for the National Museum of African History and Culture, said his grandfather, Buck Albert Franklin, is pictured in the exhibition. “The picture was taken in 1899. He had been enslaved by Native Americans but was able to escape and serve in the Civil War.”

For 75-year-old Alfred Whitaker, a member of Virginia’s Nottoway tribe, the exhibit means, “Black Indians are no longer invisible. I grew up listening to stories from my great-grandmother who was full-blooded Creek, but I could not say in proper company that my ancestors were Native American. Virginia had a law that said that if you had one drop of black blood, then you were considered colored, effectively disenfranchising Native Americans.”

For Louise Thundercloud, the exhibit “is the beginning of a place of healing long overdue. That we have come together to give a more accurate representation is really exciting.”

Tall Oak, a 73-year-old elder from Rhode Island and an Absentee Mashentucket Pequot, commented that the exhibit shows a more balanced picture between red and black peoples than previously shown in history books.

“For so long, the history books had been sanitized. Before this exhibition came to fruition, I had dreamed of telling the impact of slavery on people. Little Rhode Island was the tail that wagged the dog in the English Colonies when it came to slavery in the U.S. “

A history buff, Tall Oak captivated an attentive audience during a session with his own Afro-Native version of the song ‘Yankee Doodle Dandy” and shared some little-known historical facts.

“The Desire, the first slave ship built in the U.S., was built in Marblehead, Massachusetts,” Tall Oak said. “A year later, there was the Pequot Massacre, and all of the Pequot that were not massacred were sent as slaves to Bermuda. In 2002, we connected with the offspring of those sent to Bermuda, and they look just like us.”

Thunder Williams, who with his wife is part of a curatorial team that includes Robert Keith Collins, Angela Gonzales, Judy Kertesz and Gabrielle Tayac, said he hopes the new Smithsonian exhibit opens the door on a larger scale for reconciliation between Afro-Native people through open dialogue “and for the bigger task of helping a society that has not reconciled with one another,” Williams said.

“Colonization in the Americas inflicted psychic trauma on black and red people, resulting in a loss of identity and a distorted reality. We need a reconciliation with history, ourselves and with others,” said Gamble-Williams.” Let’s get over the fear of Africa and the fear of being identified as having African blood.”

Co-sponsored by local chapters of the Links, the exhibit will travel on exhibition through 2012. The Williamses hope the exhibition will reach numerous groups so that open discussions can be addressed around sensitive issues such as full blood versus mixed blood, and the social and political implications around identity issues.

Thunder Williams says, " 'IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas' will facilitate dispelling negative images and unfounded myths perpetuated by inaccurate historical accounts and unbalanced academic instruction. Understanding how one's personal history fits into the national history and correspondingly into a global history is a cornerstone of cross-cultural enlightenment."

“As a sociologist, I ask, ‘How did we come to have these different ideologies?' " Dr. Angela A. Gonzales, a member of the Hopi tribe, and a member of the curator team said. “This is a huge topic that so many of us are invested in.”

IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas


National Museum of the American Indian: Symposium - Friday, November 13, 2009
A part of the American story has long been invisible—the story of people who share African American and Native American ancestry. Over centuries, African American and Native people came together, creating shared histories, communities, and ways of life. Often divided by prejudice, laws, or twists of history, African-Native Americans were united by a double heritage that is truly indivisible.

Held on the occasion of the groundbreaking exhibition IndiVisible: African-Native American Lives in the Americas, this symposium aims to bring visibility to African-Native American lives and initiate a healing dialogue on African-Native American experiences for people of all backgrounds. Speakers include curators and authors Robert Keith Collins (African and Choctaw descent), Penny Gamble-Williams (Chappaquiddick Wampanoag), Angela Gonzales (Hopi), Judy Kertész, Tiya Miles, and Gabrielle Tayac (Piscataway). Lonnie G. Bunch, III, director of the Smithsonians National Museum of African American History and Culture, will deliver opening remarks, and NMAI director Kevin Gover (Pawnee) moderates.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

500 Nations - Part 2



500 Nations is an eight part documentary on the Native Americans of North and Central America. It documents from pre-Columbian to the end of the 19th century. Much of the information comes from text, eyewitnesses, pictorials, and computer graphics. The series was hosted by Kevin Costner, and directed by Jack Leustig. It included the voice talents of narrator Gregory Harrison, Eric Schweig, Wes Studi, Edward James Olmos, and Patrick Stewart. "500 Nations tries to crystallize the sweeping events that reshaped North America- one of the largest and most pivotal stories in human history - a story we feel is widely unknown. Often painful, sometimes shocking, but in the end it is simply about understanding." Kevin Costner

500 Nations - Part 2

Removal of Southeast Native Americans

FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES
The term "Five Civilized Tribes" came into use during the mid-nineteenth century to refer to the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations. Although these Indian tribes had various cultural, political, and economic connections before removal in the 1820s and 1830s, the phrase was most widely used in Indian Territory and Oklahoma.

Americans, and sometimes American Indians, called the five Southeastern nations "civilized" because they seemed to be assimilating to Anglo-American norms. The term indicated the adoption of horticulture and other European cultural patterns and institutions, including widespread Christianity, written constitutions, centralized governments, intermarriage with white Americans, market participation, literacy, animal husbandry, patrilineal descent, and even slave-holding. None of these attributes characterized all of the nations or all of the citizens that they encompassed. The term was also used to distinguish these five nations from other so-called "wild" Indians who continued to rely on hunting for survival.

Elements of "civilization" within Southeastern Indian society predated removal. The Cherokee, for example, established a written language in 1821, a national supreme court in 1822, and a written constitution in 1827. The other four nations had similar, if less noted, developments.


500 Nations -- Removal of Southeast Native Americans, Part 1


500 Nations -- Removal of Southeast Native Americans, Part 2


500 Nations -- Removal of Southeast Native Americans, Part 3

PBS Special: We Shall Remain, After the Mayflower


In March of 1621, in what is now southeastern Massachusetts, Massasoit, the leading sachem of the Wampanoag, sat down to negotiate with a ragged group of English colonists. Hungry, dirty, and sick, the pale-skinned foreigners were struggling to stay alive; they were in desperate need of Native help.

Massasoit faced problems of his own. His people had lately been decimated by unexplained sickness, leaving them vulnerable to the rival Narragansett to the west. The Wampanoag sachem calculated that a tactical alliance with the foreigners would provide a way to protect his people and hold his Native enemies at bay. He agreed to give the English the help they needed.

A half-century later, as a brutal war flared between the English colonists and a confederation of New England Indians, the wisdom of Massasoit’s diplomatic gamble seemed less clear. Five decades of English immigration, mistreatment, lethal epidemics, and widespread environmental degradation had brought the Indians and their way of life to the brink of disaster. Led by Metacom, Massasoit’s son, the Wampanoag and their Native allies fought back against the English, nearly pushing them into the sea.


We Shall Remain, Episode 1 After The Mayflower Part 1


We Shall Remain: Episode 1 After the Mayflower Part 2


We Shall Remain, Episode 1 After The Mayflower Part 3


We Shall Remain, Episode 1 After The Mayflower Part 4


We Shall Remain, Episode 1 After The Mayflower Part 5


We Shall Remain, Episode 1 After The Mayflower Part 6


We Shall Remain, Episode 1 After The Mayflower Part 7


We Shall Remain, Episode 1 After The Mayflower Part 8

Eastern Seaboard Native Americans



Nanepashemet interviewed for Kevin Costner's "500 Nations" (1993) - Part 1


INCLUDES: Was Massasoit a practical man? Why the Wampanoags helped and engaged with Plimoth Plantation; why Plimoth's settlers were simply "lucky"; the consequences of imposing English law in New England; laws on the Sabbath and alcohol.


Nanepashemet interviewed for Kevin Costner's "500 Nations" (1993) - Part 2


INCLUDES: the causes of King Philip's War in 1675; reasons for Native victories early in the war; the fortunes of various New England groups in "praying towns" during the war; Metacomet's or "King Philip's" backgrounds and his will to negotiate.


Nanepashemet interviewed for Kevin Costner's "500 Nations" (1993) - Part 3

Friday, May 20, 2011

The Spanish Settlements

The Spanish Settlements
Father Junipero Serra

The Spanish Empire was the first to create a permanent colony in California. Father Junipero Serra arrived in San Diego during the summer of 1769 and founded Mission San Diego de Alcala, the first of 21 Catholic missions that would spread along the coast of California. At the same time, the first presidio (military base) was established in San Diego. The mission and military presidio in San Diego were the first sites where Europeans and native Californians interacted regularly. A portion of the colonists came aboard ships from ports on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Many colonists, however, traveled on overland routes from the interior of Mexico. The De Anza expedition of 1775 – 1776, for example, walked 1,200 miles from Mexico to establish the town of San Jose and the presidio in San Francisco.


The missionaries, soldiers and settlers came from many backgrounds. The missionaries, who were in the Franciscan order, were mostly Spaniards. The soldiers, however, were far more diverse. Some were born in Spain, but the vast majority came from Mexico and could claim Indian or African heritage. Many of the colonists were Mestizo, or people with mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry. For example, the original settlers of the pueblo of Los Angeles included 26 people of African descent, 16 Native Americans, and two Spaniards.

(source: http://www.weareca.org/index.php/en/era/1540s-1830s/overview_3.html)

Thursday, May 19, 2011

The California Missions: Las Misiones de California

From the San Francisco Gate, "The dark, terrible secret of California's missions," by Elias Castillo, 8 November 2004:

Mission in Santa Barbara, California

Sometime soon, the House will give final consideration to the California Mission Preservation Act, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., providing $10 million to help restore California's Roman Catholic Missions --those historic sites where Franciscan friars and California's Indians supposedly existed in gentle harmony.

In part, the act describes how "the knowledge and cultural influence of native California Indians made a lasting contribution to the early settlements of California and the development of the California missions." What the bill utterly omits is that locked within the missions is a terrible truth -- that they were little more than concentration camps where California's Indians were beaten, whipped, maimed, burned, tortured and virtually exterminated by the friars.

Mission in San Diego, California
"Corporal punishment is inflicted on the Indians of both sexes who neglect the exercises of piety, and many sins, which are left in Europe to the divine justice, are here punished by iron and stocks. And lastly, to complete the similtude between this and other religious communities, it must be observed, that the moment an Indian is baptised, the effect is the same as if he had pronounced a vow for life. If he escape, to reside with his relations in the independent villages, he is summoned three times to return, and if he refuse, the missionaries apply to the governor, who sends soldiers to seize him in the midst of his family, and conduct him to the mission, where he is condemned to receive a certain number of lashes, with the whip." (San Diego History)

The California Indians, as the proposal says, did have a culture, but they never got a chance to contribute it to California. The Spanish crown decreed in the 1760s that the Indians were to be rounded up, baptized into Christianity and their culture destroyed. It was the same policy that Spain had followed in eradicating the complex and advanced cultures of the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs in Latin America.

Vasali Turkanoff, a Russian captive, was a more rabid detractor of the mission system and bitterly criticized the treatment accorded Indians at the missions. He was particularly incensed by the harsh punishments inflicted upon mission runaways when captured. Typically the Fathers and a squad of soldiers went in pursuit. Turkanoff claimed that when the deserters returned:

They were all bound with rawhide ropes, and some were bleeding from wounds, and some children were tied to their mothers. The next day we saw some terrible things. Some of the runaway men were tied to sticks and beaten with straps. One chief was taken out to the open field and a young calf which had just died was skinned and the chief was sewed into the skin while it was yet warm. He was kept tied to a stake all day, but he died soon and they kept his corpse tied up. (source: San Diego History )
In 1769, that near-genocidal policy was launched, under the direction of Father Junipero Serra, with the founding of California's first mission. One scholar, Robert Archibald, has written that the missions were akin to the "forced movement of black people from Africa to the American South." With the help of Spain's soldiers, the Indians were herded to the sites of the missions. Once there, they became slaves, directed by the friars to build the missions. Once within the mission boundaries, they were forever forbidden to leave. No less an authority than the U.S. National Park Service has documented and described the hellish and tragic fate of the California Indians, especially the coastal tribes. They were not warring tribes, but instead gentle harvesters who lived in equilibrium with their land and seashore.
Mission San Carlos Borromeo in the Monterey

Their terrible fate at the hands of the Spanish and friars was described by Jean François de Galaup de la Perouse, a French explorer and sea voyager hired by the French government to report on the western coastal areas of North America. In 1786 he visited Mission San Carlos Borromeo in the Monterey area and described the severe punishments inflicted on the Indians. The friars, he determined, considered the Indians "too much a child, too much a slave, too little a man." California historians Walton Bean and James J. Rawls, described La Perouse as likening the missions to the slave plantations of Santo Domingo.

Colonial stocks
Commandants of the presidios were also asked to report on punishments used at the missions and their descriptions were at variance with Lasuén's. Uniformly they maintained that from 15 to 50 lashes were the norm although a novenary of twenty-five lashes per day for nine days was sometimes applied. Stocks, shackles and hobbles were also applied to neophytes accused of neglect of work or religious duties, overstaying leave of absence, sexual offenses, thefts and quarreling. (source: San Diego History)

Yet, the Indians did not easily accede to the cruel mission life. They rebelled several times, in one instance burning nearly all of the buildings of Mission La Purísima in Santa Ynez. Historian Robert F. Heizer attributed the flare-up to the "flogging of a La Purísima neophyte" (as the Indians were called in the missions).

In the late 1820s, Mexico rebelled against Spain and won its independence. Within a decade, it also declared that the missions had to vest half their property to the Indians while the other half went to the friars and government officials. It was the beginning of the end for the missions. By the late 19th century, the missions were in ruins, abandoned by the friars who could not continue operating them without the slave labor of the Indians, whose numbers had been decimated by hard labor, starvation and disease. It is estimated that California's Indian population was about 310,000 at the beginning of Spanish rule. At the close of the 19th century, they had been reduced to approximately 100,000.

Restoration of the missions was started at the beginning of the 20th century by well-meaning persons who either ignored the cruelties inflicted on the Indians or simply were unaware of the horrors that had occurred within them. While enough historians have accurately documented those terrible ordeals, however, their findings are not well known. Visit any of the missions and there is no mention of Indians being put in stocks, whipped or chained. Instead, the usual description is of friars and Indians living side by side in peaceful harmony and happily helping each other.

Santa Barbara Mission
Lasuén's ultimate defense of the system which he served rested upon the defective character of the natives. The Father President's refutation included a scathing indictment of the very people whom he served. "Here are aborigines whom we are teaching to be men, people of vicious and ferocious habits who know no law but force. . .They are a people without education, without government, religion or respect for authority, and they shamelessly pursue without restraint whatever their brutal appetites suggest to them. Their inclination to lewdness and theft is on a par with their love for the mountains. Such is the character of the men we are required to correct, and whose crimes we must punish." (San Diego History)

The California Missions Preservation Act is expected to be voted on soon. Besides the potential and obvious conflict of its violating the constitutional separation of church and state, there is the moral responsibility that if government funds are to be used in restoring the missions, the granting of those funds must be dependent on memorializing the suffering of California's native people in the missions.

This nation has recently opened the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. It is a monument to the Native Americans of North, Central and South America. The existence of the museum mandates that the ordeal of California's Indians cannot continue to be largely ignored and forgotten. Too many Native Americans died within the missions, which were supposed to be monuments to God's mercy, forgiveness and benevolence.

Mission in San Jose, California

The act must require that descriptions of the enslavement of California's Indians within the missions and the horrible ordeals they endured be clearly and visible provided to all visitors. America has not buried the shameful history of slavery in its Southern states; instead, books have been written and museums opened so that all may forever know of the cruelties of that practice. Why then, should the shameful history of the missions be hidden and ignored?

Additionally, the act must also require that funds be set aside for research to be conducted on mission grounds for the purpose of determining if mass graves of Indians exist within them. While some missions have clearly marked graveyards set aside for the friars, little knowledge exists of what happened to the thousands of deceased Indians who toiled within the missions. If sites are found containing the remains of those Indians, those areas must then be clearly marked for visitors and declared hallowed ground.

Mission San Miguel Arcangel

California and the nation cannot continue to look the other way at what happened in the missions; it must confront that awful specter and unveil it as a dark chapter of the state's history. It does not matter that those vicious practices occurred during Spanish rule. The missions are now revered as beloved monuments. Their continued restoration must also bring to light the most frightful chamber of their history.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

The People of Hawaii

When Captain James Cook arrived in Hawaii in 1778 that was a relatively easy question to answer. There were, depending on the various estimates available, between 300,000 and 400,000 native Hawaiians, the kanaka maoli.

Over the course of the next century the native Hawaiian population dropped between 80-90%. This decline was due, in large part, to the diseases introduced by contact with foreigners. These diseases included venereal disease, small pox, measles, whooping cough and influenza.

By 1878, the native population was estimated to be between 40,000 and 50,000 people. While drastically smaller than the population of just one hundred years previously, the native Hawaiians still comprised over 75% of the total population of Hawaii.

Over the last one hundred and twenty years, the numbers of pure Hawaiians, those with only Hawaiian blood, have continued to decline. The pure Hawaiian is a dying race. Today, there are less than 8,000 pure Hawaiians alive.
On the other hand, the number of those who are, at least, part Hawaiian and who consider themselves to be Hawaiian, has increased steadily since the turn of the century. Today, there are estimated to be between 225,000 and 250,000 people with Hawaiian blood living in Hawaii.
What can be said about the native Hawaiian population of today is that it is growing at a rate of about 6000 people per year, and at a higher rate than any other ethnic group in Hawaii.
The majority of the native Hawaiian people, however, have less than 50% pure Hawaiian blood. The majority live on the island of Oʻahu, have a median income of $45,486 and are predominately unmarried.

The native Hawaiians, however, are only a part of the answer to the question, "Who are the people of Hawaii?". Whether you accept the figures of the U.S. Census Bureau or those of the Health Surveillance Program of the Department of Health, native Hawaiians are a minority in their own land.

Then, who are the people of Hawaii? As of the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 1,211,537 people living in Hawaii.

Of those people, 24.3% were Caucasian, 16.7% were of Japanese descent, 14.1% were of Filipino descent, 6.6% were of Hawaiian descent and 4.7% were of Chinese descent. Interestingly, 21.4% of the population identified themselves as belonging to two or more races. Of those people who identify themselves as belonging totally of one race alone or in combination with one or more other races, 58.0% are in whole or partially Asian, 39.3% in whole or partially Caucasian and 23.3% in whole or partially Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.

Estimates for the population of Hawaii in 2006 show a total population increase to 1,285,498.

Hawaii is clearly the most racially integrated state in the United States. It is also the only state where whites are not the majority but rather only a third of the population.

As diverse as Hawaii is racially, so are the large differences in the median household income between Honolulu County (the Island of Oʻahu) and the other counties of Hawaii:

Honolulu County - $ 54,714
Maui County - Lānaʻi, Maui, and Molokai - $49,065
Kauai County - $45,146
Hawaii County - The Big Island $ 42,043
For comparison purposes, the median household income in the United States as a whole is $44,344.
Hawaii's ethnic diversity makes for a very different society than is seen in the rest of the country. While Hawaii is in many ways a much more culturally, ethnically and racially blended society than the rest of the United States it is not, however, a society without its own racial and ethnic problems.

It is often said that there are two types of Hawaiians, those of Hawaiian blood and those who are Hawaiian-at-heart. There are also those who are citizens of the State of Hawaii and who also call this wonderful land their home.

(source: http://gohawaii.about.com/cs/culture/a/hawaiian_people.htm)