Native American Voices

Angela Fields

Native American Voices

9/23/2016

While our country matures, we can see leaps and bounds of minority groups gaining leadership and influence within our society although with all our progress we still have a long way to go.  This paper will show that even though Europeans saw Native people as “Uncivilized” nothing could be further from the truth regarding Native’s social acceptance of diversity specifically among women and gay communities.  In many instances Natives, should be considered more civilized than our own current society and that of present day European’s.  Throughout the history of Native cultures, women can be seen as high ranking chiefs and respected leaders, yet today out of the 44 presidents this nation has seen, not one has been female or has even seemed possible for one to become president until recently in the now 21^st century.  Just as long as females have struggled for equal rights so too have gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people within this country and others.  However, such people were considered in high regard among many Native cultures and hold important roles within their social communities even accepted and fully integrated from the beginning within many Native people’s creation stories and given honored titles like “Two-spirit.”  There will be examples of both cases in comparison of how our own governments and societies (past and present) have yet to recognize and fully accept these types of persons as well as continually discriminate against them.

Sometimes known as “Berdache” a word first created by the French as they met people among the Natives derived in the French language to mean younger partners in male homosexual relationships however the term grew in meaning when it described what they encountered.  One website explains that, “Plains Indian berdaches are best described as occupying an alternative or third gender role, in which traits of men and women are combined with those unique to berdache status” (www.plainshumanities.unl.edu).  But more commonly known as “Two-spirits” today among many Native American societies, referring to a person biologically of a particular sex but whose spirit may not feel as though that role is fully meant for them.  Which is affirming another classification of citizen that of neither man nor woman.  “Many Native Americans also understood that gender roles have to do with more than just biological sex (Williams Article),” explains an article on the Berdache tradition.  Many Native cultures recognized this type of person within their social structures and many in fact celebrated them holding them in high honor for the unique perspective they brought to the community, among those are the Crows(Apsáalooke), Blackfoot(Niitsitapi), Cheyenne(Tsitsistas), Pawnee, and the Navajo (Dine) as well as many others.

As far back as the Navajo creations story these types of people are known, such as the case of Turquoise Boy, a figure interpreted by the Navajo who stayed with the first people when the female figure of White Shell Girl left.  They found that this Turquoise Boy was capable of what First Woman was able to do, and left with the First Man. Throughout the creation story of the Navajo, Turquois Boy is very ingenious and it is said that the “stories suggest that the very survival of humanity is dependent on the inventiveness of berdaches and that a spiritual explanation guaranteed a special place for a person who was considered different but not deviant” (Williams Article).  To bring this argument home to how we have and still treat people that are different as in the case of Two-spirits, it was not until October 6, 2014 that this state of Utah made same sex marriage legal and equal to that of other marriage unions.  It could be pointed out the long spans of time where people fought and are still fighting for such rights across the globe but to give the whole of it in a single moment not even two years ago did we as a “civilized culture” finally make such a needed change in fundamental social policy.  Yet for years, centuries and possibly millennia’s Native cultures have had special and honored roles for two-spirit people to keep, for the betterment of their culture, as told by Wesley Thomas, “They were herbalist, they were negotiators, they were healers, they were match makers, they counseled couples and when children were orphaned, the Nadleehi (man to women transgender) would become the caretakers of the children” (DVD, Two Spirits, 2009).

Juantio Becenti says that, “In the Navajo belief system evil is the intentional act of committing harm against other people, either psychologically or physically and that would include attempting to force your own particular beliefs upon anyone” (DVD, Two Spirits, 2009).  In contrast, some of the atrocities committed against such people by the “civilized” European powers that came to the Americas included in the case of the Spanish Conquistadors to throw two-spirit people into pits where war dogs would literally tear them limb from limb.  For all English settlements, any homosexual activity was deemed “buggery” passed from English law and possibly punishable by death. Even the attempt could have a person accused, to be banished, imprisoned, fined or physically whipped.  If those European powers were so “civilized” how were such barbaric practices and such blind hate able to exist under a good person’s moral compass? Johann Hari states that, “The day before Christopher Columbus set foot in North America, it was a safer place for gay people than it was ever going to be again for several centuries” (www.independent.co.uk), which was true since that day was claimed to be in December 1492 and it wasn’t until 1786 that Pennsylvania was the first state to repeal the death penalty for “sodomy.”  Even despite that law being removed, the change didn’t come close to ending the brutal treatment or the unacceptance people have for two-spirited people around the world even to present day.

Gay rights continue to be a heated topic in today’s politics and communities though thankfully, gaining the logical acceptance it should have been given from the start.  Victories against prejudices can be seen on a regular basis although in Native culture the war against them would have never occurred.  Natives also included, across many of its various cultures women, which were equal to the roles played by men. Sadly, for women after European colonialization, the struggle for gender equality has been likewise hard fought and slow coming.

To have a perspective of the length of time the female struggle has continued it was not until 1981 that a women Sandra Day O’Connor was first appointed to the Supreme Court for the United States, not until 1916 that Jeannette Rankin was elected to the House of Representatives, and not until Hattie Caraway was elected as a Senator in 1922.  The Supreme Court first convened in 1790, the Senate in 1789 and Congress in 1781.  And although the accomplishments politically and socially by women have been recognized and applauded with each passing year, the hardships they had to endure to get there makes one question why those women had to struggle to accomplish them in the first place.

 Within many Native cultures women were leaders of their communities free to accomplish any goal they felt right for their people.  They were free to marry whoever they wanted unlike the royalty back in Europe.  They were free to council and vote, free to live beside a man and not walk behind them as it has been in some areas of Japan and in Muslim cultures even to this day.  They were free to pursue goals and expand their lives despite having children again unlike how it was for most women until changes began in the 20^th century within our country.  According to the Women’s International Center(WIC), “Historically women have been considered not only intellectually inferior to men but also a major source of temptation and evil” (wic.org/misc/history).  Such stereotypes unfounded in academia and religious based superstitions have long undermined the progress of the female gender and found its way within America in good part from the beliefs of the Europeans that settled it.  However, as historians’ state, “From the Native American perspective, women’s roles reflected their own cultural emphases on reciprocity, balance, and autonomy.  Most scholars agree that Native American women at the time of contact with Europeans had more authority and autonomy than did European women” (teachinghistory.org, Historian Ellen Holmes Pearson).

Examples of the innate woman’s rights recognized within Native communities were “Wetamoo a ‘Squaw Sachem’ or female chief of the Pocassets” (page 108 Text).  And again, the Navajo creation story “good relationships between the sexes, between First Man and First Woman, are crucial to creation and to social harmony” (page 43 Text).  Within the Iroquois Great League of Peace in the case of death “the chief matron and the warriors of the family and clan of the deceased lord, shall nominate another lord” (page 64 Text). Within Iroquois culture a “women’s economic power gave them considerable political power.  Clan mothers could decide the fate of captives, elect and remove council chiefs, and influence decisions for war or peace” (page 177 Text).  However, the general view of European men it is stated in the case of “Sir William Johnson, the British superintendent, women were politically unnecessary (Page 178 Text).” Wilma Mankiller was the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation despite being a woman.  Another example is “Environmentalist Winona LaDuke (daughter of an Anishinabe father) gained nationwide recognition as vice presidential running mate to Ralph Nader on the 1996 and 2000 Green Party tickets” (Page 58 Diversity Leaders Not Labels).  Though in the case of Winona LaDuke and Wilma Mankiller which shows an improvement for not just a person of strong Native American descent raising to national role and leadership but also as women finally being recognized for their talents politically and socially.  And though both had a lot of criticism for being both Native and female, neither would even have been an issue in the eyes of many Native cultures and communities.  Many of those cultures had in place gender equality long before and arguably still over that of European descended traditions.

It wasn’t until this country, as it is now, had spread its roots thoroughly, did women’s rights begin to change for the better, to allow women to vote, to own land, to pursue without persecution some career types and the education to obtain one, to hold a political office or even have an opinion that opposed their spouses.  Although, “The Census Bureau predicts that women will continue to outnumber men throughout the first half of this century, going from a numerical difference of 5.3 million in 2000 to 6.9 million in 2050” (Page,145 Diversity Leaders Not Labels), they will still have to struggle for the same rights today that many Native women already enjoyed before the Americas’ colonialization.  To emphasize the unfairness women are dealt, let’s bring it down to a fact of money, “By some estimates, women work close to two-thirds of the world’s work hours but earn only one-tenth of the world’s income” (Page 148 Diversity Leaders Not Labels), even though the book’s copyright date is in 2006 (not very far back in recent history by any account) it is still a staggering statistic.

To define “Civilized” by the Merriam-Webster is to be “marked by well-organized laws and rules about how people behave with each other…,” just as it has been written here of how Natives accepted a person’s spiritual attunement to a gender regardless of outward appearance or how women were included in every branch of society creating harmony within their structures.  It goes on in the definition of “Civilized” as being,” Polite, reasonable, and respectful…,” rather than create barriers from the differences of men, women and two-spirits in the many Native cultures, all are treated with respect, for their respective differences, and made a useful and fully capable active member for the reasonable betterment of the community.  In contrast to the Europeans and others, that wanted to unreasonably keep up the divides and nonproductive exclusions as well as clearly unfair traditions and at times barbaric acts of hatred towards those groups.  To the Natives ALL people were seen of value, each with unique perspective but Europeans and others today take a dismissive stance seeing people of different types as second class citizens and even as property under themselves.  It is a sad thing that to Europeans to be “uncivilized” was define mostly by another not being like them or that don’t act as they do and so to them this meant those persons were primitive.  It is a great lose that this country was founded in part on those traditions and continued so far in its history. But if we take a good look at the peaceful ideals Native people embodied long before the idea of America even existed, and begin to practice them further, we can have hope that our “Civilization” can continue to shine brighter still.

Angela Fields

10/22/2016

Native American Voices Exam 2

Despite all the efforts, compromises and struggle the Natives had, to appease the Europeans that swarmed the Americas, maintain their cultures in the face of this “invasion,” and keep the shrinking territories of their birth, history shows it was sadly a losing battle.  Throughout this clash of agendas Natives more often than not, got the short end of the stick. Though the arguments given by Metacom, Canasatego and Ateawaneto were all well thought out, relayed to the best of their abilities and with as much evidence they thought necessary, time and time again they were at a disadvantage because those talks nearly always fell onto deaf ears. Of the three I find that Ateawaneto’s is the most compelling and straightforward.  Though many valid arguments are brought by the other two, Ateawaneto seems to get straight to the point when he talks about how they “expressly forbid you (the settlers) to kill a single beaver, or to take a single stick of timber on the lands we inhabit,” as well as when he says that they always speak kindly but always have hidden objectives making the Natives on guard the second they begin to talk (Text, page 192). All three arguments are likely translations and therefore somewhat skewed by difficulties understanding language, but also making it so we cannot fully regard either as perfect. With this in mind, I feel Ateanwaneto was as closely representative to what was being said because it illustrates the least amount of favoritism to those being spoken to, as it seemed to be with Metacom’s, which spoke of him in the third person and not first, nor does it indicate a heavy amount of metaphor to give reason as Canasatego used which may have been misinterpreted.

All three Native leaders shared many of the same arguments or grievances against the British expansion. All protested in the amount of land the British claimed to have a right to, and all mentioned the dishonest methods in which the British made those claims. In Metacom's argument he states that, “when their kings sold land the English would say it was more than they agreed to and a writing must be proof against all of them (Reader, page 56).” He also goes on to say that, “some being given to drunkenness the English made them drunk and then cheated them in bargains (Reader, page 57).” Both shows how Metacom feels his people have been not only misled to the amount of land they had signed over since writing was still a new way of documenting this exchange, but also that the terms were normally unfair to the Natives or earned using shady methods. In Canasatego speech these arguments can be seen when he says the Governor of Maryland, “went back to old times, and told us, you had been in possession of the Province of Maryland above one hundred years; but what is one Hundred years in comparison of the length of time since our claim began? Since we came out of this ground (Text, page 188).”  Canasatego then later argues that land had been given to the Governor of New York more as a loan to “keep it safe for our use,” because he had said that Brother Onas (William Penn), who had offered to purchase it would make bad use of the land (Text, page 189). But then later the Natives discovered that the Governor of New York had sold the loan of land back in England where he, “carried our land with him, and there sold it to our Brother Onas, for a large sum of money,” and had deceived the Natives and in this way, cheated them of the land he had said he meant to protect (Text, page 189). Just as the other two had noted the continual one-sided dealings with the Europeans, Ateawaneto also brings up the points of misdealing between his people and the Europeans when he questions who had authorized them to survey part of their land after having stated that they “have not yet sold the lands we inhabit, we wish to keep the possession of them (Text, page 192).” He goes on to say they would not “cede one single inch of the lands we inhabit beyond what has been decided formerly by our fathers (Text page 192).” In this argument Ateawaneto recognizes the lands that had been previously sold or given, but is saying in the most simplest terms the settlers continually overreach their bounds without permission and should be punished for breaking the agreements they both had over them. I find that his argument when said so plainly should hold a greater sway. Although all had valid points when it came to land and the unjust way it was being taken from them, Ateawaneto laid it all out explaining their hostilities were not because the French had turned them against the English, but that the English had turned them against them all on their own.

The three brought up the point of land in various ways beyond those just stated. Metacom would talk about how the animals brought by the settlers would also exceed the given bounds to the destruction of the Native’s crops. Further speaking of the generosity that had been shown by his father, Massasoit, when the settlers had just started out in this land, which had not now been reciprocated back to the Natives in their time of need. Canasatego also speaks of the Natives generosity by giving a long metaphorical account of instances land had been given from small amounts to massive ones at the expense of his people when he says, “We are now straightened, and sometimes in want of deer, and liable to many other inconveniences since the English came among us, and particularly from that Pen-and-Ink work that is going on at the table (Text, page 189).”   In Canasatego speech he also speaks of the cost the European animals had brought to his lands when he says,” ...the white people's cattle have eat up all the grass, and made deer scarce (Text, page 190).” Though Ateawaneto does not directly bring up the issue of the European animals, his point that the settlers have continued to encroach upon them in many instances is clear with his point where he tells them flatly, “we will not cede one single inch of the lands we inhabit beyond what has been decided formerly by our fathers (Text, page 192).” He also addresses the written form that Europeans held so often over Natives as a form of proof by telling them to take a written account of what had been said in this meeting to their governor, telling them that they would do likewise and to send any answer to what they had addressed straight to the authorities within the French who would relay it back to the Natives. By saying this to Captain Phineas Stevens he is stating, with no measure to hid it, that he will play the game of writs with the best of them to ensure all is kept on even terms in this occasion.

Metacom states in his argument that the Europeans had forced his brother Wamsutta to a meeting and threatened him when he had become chief, after Massasoit had passed, and they believed that when he was on his way home had died of poison. This and many other reasons could have been causes for Metacom's frustration. Not in the document but perhaps one of reasons for the argument in the first place may be found when, “Phillips personal secretary traveled to Plymouth to warn the Governor Winslow that Phillip was arming for war. Three weeks later the secretary was dead. English authorities captured three of Philip's men, tried them for the murder and executed them. For Indian people, of course, a killing of an Indian, by an Indian, in Indian country, was something that should have been settled by Indian people. After that blatant assault to Indian sovereignty, Philip must have been under incredible pressure from his warriors to step up and do something about this (TV Series, We Shall Remain, After the Mayflower. 2009).” This argument, as well as the one he states where,” if 20 of their honest Indians testified that an Englishman had done them wrong, it was as nothing, and if but one of their worst Indians testified against any Indian or their king when it pleased the English that was sufficient (Reader, page 56),” shows the skewed nature of the English justice system in which Natives were often victim.

Arguments posed by Canasatego that offered insights where the other two had not is when he states the tools that the Dutch had brought them of, “Awls, Knives, Hatchets, Guns, and many other particulars, which they gave,” to the Natives as gifts but that the Natives had, “Knives of stone, and hatchets of stone, and bows and arrows, and those served our uses as well then as the English ones do now (Text, page 188-189).” He also mentions lands once possessed by the Conestogoe or Sasquahannah Indians had become their lands by right of conquest and had not ever been sold to the English.

Ateawaneto makes claims that it is not the Natives intent to create conflict, but that it is the conflicts that have been created by the settlers that is to blame for the tension between both peoples. That it was not their desire to go war is proved when he says, “We tell you that we seek not war, we ask nothing better than to be quiet, and it depends, brothers, only on you English, to have peace with us (Text, page 192).” He continues with this reasoning saying, “You are therefore masters of the peace that we are to have with you. On condition that you will not encroach on those lands we will be at peace (Text, page 192).” Lastly, he tells the British, “We are entirely free,” which cannot be expressed more plainly to show that the British have no hold over them and should address them as a People or Nation, just as they would France or any other (Text, page 192).

The three leaders that came forward with these many arguments of misdeeds against them and their people, unfortunately, often walked away with less than they had before to the eventual removal from their homelands. The European settlers continued to pressure the Natives for more land despite all attempts they had at negotiation, resistance, and sometimes violent outburst against them. Metacom, Canasatego and Ateawaneto all sought a way to bring peace by diplomacy, to avoid conflict before acting against the Europeans. The existence of these documents proves this, even though all were brought about because these leaders had their backs against the wall, where the Europeans had pushed them. Their very survival and way of life was on the line. They had attempted no less to resolve these issues as we hope many of our leaders do today, standing up for their people and for issues they found to be just cause. We should find all their statements to be valid and full of reasons to act being that none are unreasonable, but simply necessity to the welfare of their people and futures. I found it difficult to select one of these leader’s arguments over the others since all raised such moving rhetoric, but finally settled on Ateawaneto simply because I felt he stated things most firmly and explicitly, and I got the feeling less was lost in translation.