Myth America III

 Next two chapters in Myth America are on Native Americans, by Ari Kelman, and Emigration, by Erika Lee.

The first seems loosely focused around that idea that Native Americans aren't "vanishing", as Dee Brown and the recently retired ad would say.  The second is mostly about the nativism with which those who lived in the US greeted arriving immigrants, sometimes barring entry to groups or limiting numbers. 

I have a problem with this sentence: "The United States has been a particularly powerful actor shaping the movement of peoples by causing human displacement through war and foreign and economic policies.." The author does not support this assertion; indeed she doesn't discuss it at all that I see.  The problem is it's not true for most of our history, at least as far as war goes.  Immigrants have come from Germany, Italy, Philippines, Korea, Japan, China, and Vietnam--all countries where we've fought wars. But in all the cases the immigration was either the movement of the losers to their supporter (i.e, Vietnamese, Hmong, Chinese) or movement because the war and subsequent occupation troops established pathways for the movement. 

Coincidentally the NYTimes has an article today discussing another immigration myth, that immigrants come and stay.  In fact through much of our history many immigrants have left. That continues today.  The pattern described in the article seems to be: come to US and work for the money; return to the homeland for family and retirement. Prof. Lee does not mention this, though the fact of immigrants leaving undermine the myth that America is so  great no one would leave once here; 

Covered With Night

 The book, Covered With Night,  is quite good.  The author uses the murder of an Indian by one or two white settlers in colonial Pennsylvania (1720s) as a way to describe and contrast the different societies and views of justice of the parties involved (various tribes, Quakers, British governor, etc.) It won the Pulitizer in 2022, deservedly.

Given the subject and approach, not to mention the prize, you'd expect it to be modern historical writing, and it is, meaning there are no heroes or villains, complexity is embraced, attention paid to women and bit players.

I recommend it. I do think it's a little one-sided, no doub because of the available source material.  The author shows the colonists as sometimes trying and usually failing to understand the ways of the Indians. Fair enough. It wasn't a total failure, but...  She does not try the reverse, to show how the Indians tried and failed to understand the colonists.   As I say, there's likely no source material for that.

Arms Dealings

 Got the book "Thundersticks" from the library. It's a history of the arms trade with Native Americans from the initial contact through the nineteenth century.

I've only read the first couple chapters--it seems a bit too scholarly for my current ability to focus.  But a couple things struck me:

• the pattern of arms dealing in the seventeenth century is similar to the pattern in modern times: countries/companies with advanced technology sell weapons to those who don't have the capability to produce their own.  (Natives weren't able to produce their own weapons or gunpowder, while they could make their own bullets if they could obtain the lead.) And the sales are used to influence international/intertribal politics, just as the Soviet Union/Russia sold weapons to India and the US sells to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
• what was surprising was how the natives financed their purchases.  Furs--beaver skins and deer skins, I knew.  But capturing slaves from other tribes for resale to colonists, possibly for export to the Caribbean--that was new. 

Champlain's Dream

 Reading David Hackett Fischers "Champlain's Dream"--

Some surprises: 

• Mohawk Indians wore armor to their first battle with Champlain--wood slats linked with cotton thread.  It reminds me of the armor Japanese warriors of the same period wore, though their slats were leather.. Fischer says it was effective against arrows with flint heads.
• They fought in closed ranks--in contrast to Champlain's handfull who fought from cover, a reversal of future patterns.
• The Mohawks had an impressive "castle", made of wood, but tall enough Champlain resorted to European siege tactics.  See this.
• Early French plantations failed--Harshaw's rule.  Scurvy was often a big problem, though winter hunting providing fresh meat during the winter would help.
• Fischer emphasizes the insecurity of the hunter-gatherer economy--tribes which lived by hunting lived well until the hunts failed, because of bad weather.  It seems a response to those who believe agriculture was humanity's biggest mistake.
• I'm always struck by the scant clothing of native Americans (even more so the Taino Columbus encountered). Makes a difference in domestic economy and in lifestyle.
• I'm surprised by the ease and frequency of Champlain's trips to and from the New World.  Ben Franklin and George Whitfield did a lot of crossings, but Champlain did 40+ trips, many quite fast.  I'm not sure whether it's the improvements in ships between 1492 and 1610 or the learning process, likely both.
• It took 30 years or so for the French to establish themselves securely at Quebec and Montreal, with permanent settlements with French women. 
• Fischer notes the early development of the voyageur culture, at least its earliest members among a group of young men who lived with various Indian nations/tribes for one or more winters, learning the language and the way of life, as well as other differences between the French and English patterns of dealing with native Americans.

The "Original Sin" of the U.S.

 CNN has an opinion piece by James Goodman "It's time to stop calling slavery America's 'original sin.'"

It turns out his problem is with "original sin" as a metaphor.  As I read his analysis I realized it really doesn't have that much to do with the religious doctrine. Instead it's a way of saying something really bad was done in the past, while the doctrine says humans are fated to do bad now.  

Goodman makes a point towards the end, with which I do agree: the first "sin" in the creation of America was the dispossession of Native Americans. 

The Meanings of Slavery

 I'm not sure what "slavery" meant in the18th and early 19th century.  One meaning obviously was chattel slavery, where a person was enslaved, could be sold, and the status was inherited based on one parent's status.

But what was the "slavery" which the American rebels feared at the hands of the British?  What was the opposite of the , "land of the free" in the Star Spangled Banner--was that also slavery?

One thing that's true--for centuries in many different places the losers in a war might be subject to slavery, or worse.   The New England settlers sold some of their Indian captives into slavery in the Caribbean. Oliver Cromwell sold Irish captives into the Caribbean (though I don't believe their status was inheritable).  Some Native American tribes imposed "slavery" on their war captives, although it seems there was a lot of variety in the patterns. I was surprised to learn that some Pacific Northwest tribes indeed had chattel slavery.  

I've not seen any discussion of whether the rebels really feared being sent into slavery if they lost the war, or whether the use of "slavery" was similar to the current use of "slavery" in connection with socialism by libertarians.

Today''s Newspapers

Two pieces in the newspapers today 

• in the Post, I think, a review of a book (which also mentions a Netfix documentary on the same high school) describing a Navaho high school using the device of following their basketball team to.  The basketball coach was most proud, not of the team record, but the fact that none of the students he counseled had committed suicide.
• elsewhere a discussion of the effective tax rate of big corporations--declined from 21 percent to 11 percent.

What's Good for the Poor Isn't Good for Native Americans?

As I noted yesterday, what's proposed for SNAP in the way of food baskets seems similar to some existing programs, most notably one for Native Americans.  Liberals are mocking the administration proposal, which is fine, but why aren't we pushing to cash out the existing program?

Mapspotting: Ithaca and Native Americans

One of the pleasures of being a know-it-all is noticing things the media/experts don't.  These days the Times, the Post, and websites display a lot of data using maps, often at the county level, enabling me to "mapspot".

For example, it's often easy to pick out Ithaca, NY, or rather Tompkins county.  It sits in the center of the state and with the presence of Cornell U. and Ithaca College it often stands out--it's an example of the "big sort", people separating themselves by money, lifestyle, and opinion.

On a darker note, there are counties in the west of North Dakota/South Dakota and around the Four Corners area of Arizona/New Mexico which stick out. Note the Vox maps on various causes and trends of mortality in this piece.  Why--because there are Indian reservations there--Sioux and Navaho.  Watch Longmire.

Enlightenment in AnteBellum Georgia?

The Internet makes a lot of stuff available, much of it not valuable but some quite interesting.  One of the interesting bits I just stumbled on is the fact that Georgia distributed land to its citizens through a series of lotteries.   Here's a list of the people entitled to "draw" in one of the lotteries:

• Bachelor, 18 years or over, 3-year residence in Georgia, citizen United States – 1 draw
• Soldier of Indian War, residence in Georgia during or since military service – 1 draw
• Invalid or indigent veteran of Revolutionary War or War of 1812 – 2 draws
• Invalid or indigent veteran of Revolutionary War or War of 1812 who was a fortunate drawer in either previous land lottery – 1 draw
• Married man with wife or minor son under 18 years or unmarried daughter, 3-year residence in Georgia, citizen United States – 2 draws
• Widow, 3-year residence in Georgia – 1 draw 
• Widow, husband killed in Revolutionary War, War of 1812 or Indian War, 3-year residence in Georgia – 2 draws 
• Family of one or two orphans under 21 years, father dead, mother living, 3-year residence in Georgia – 1 draw
• Family of three or more orphans under 21 years, father and mother both dead, 3-year residence in Georgia – 2 draws
• Family of one or two orphans under 21 years, father and mother both dead, 3-year residence in Georgia, 1 draw
• Orphan under 21 years, father killed in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, or Indian War, 3-year residence in Georgia – 2 draws
• Invalid or indigent officer or soldier in the Revolutionary Army who had been fortunate drawer in either previous lottery – 1 draw

I'm not quite sure how these worked together--for example would a "widow" get one draw on her own, and one draw for her family?  If so, that would be equal to the married man's 2 draws.

Anyhow, it strikes me as surprisingly liberated for 1820, at least gender-wise.  Of course the land being distributed was that taken from the Native Americans, so it wasn't really enlightened.

Pigford II Passes Senate

As reported by the Post here.  Also includes money to settle the long lasting lawsuit over BIA's handling of Indian trust funds.  I must say, given the way ASCS/FSA and BIA pass information on payments for land owned by BIA Indians, I've never been surprised at how screwed up the accounts got.  Some historian will write an interesting book on the subject because it's a place where Native American society and the market-oriented, individualistic society of the European settlers interfaces, interfaces poorly.