Wampum

This morning, after reading my rant against the "R" word last night, I decided to catch up on the latest back and forth over the "true offensiveness" of the word. I wasn't surprised to see a various crop of new apologists, including Geoffrey Nunberg and the Smithsonian linguists. Now, before you all get bent out of shape and cry, "but Nunburg agrees that it's offensive", the facts are more complicated. Nunburg agrees that the "R" word is in fact offensive to many modern Indians, but due to the fact it is generally always used as a pejorative, not because of it's etymology. In fact, Nunburg discredits as myth the Indian argument that the term came from the scalping and skinning of Indians for US and Colonial government bounties.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, in a past life (well, just a few years back, BCK (Before Current Kids)), I was educated and employed as an Ethnohistoric Archaeologist, with a specialty in NAGPRA. My most recent work was on the repatriation of 17th Century human remains and sacred goods from the Connecticut State Archaeologist's Office (the SA was a very good, pro-Indian guy, btw) to the Pequot Indian Nation. I was the first scholar to correct the near century-long mis-interpretation of Verrazano purportedly seeing "corn" (mais) growing in Narragansett Bay in 1524, versus some form of bean (legumi), so I have more than a passing familiarity with original sources, including those in French, Spanish and Italian.

When I was in grad school at UMass, one of my favorite professors, Martin Wobst, gave a great lecture one day on the real truth of the "archaeological record"; it's all trash. Much of what we find was discarded, perhaps on purpose, so to endow those objects we actually discover with some heightened value is silly. It's just as likely the stuff we never find had equal or greater value.

Historians seem to fall for the same trap; if it was written down, not only is it true, all biases of the author disappear over time. (Imagine future historians using LGFs as an objective source.) And lets not even get into how historians feel about traditional "oral" history. On the other hand, here an example.

When Eric and I first met, I told him of a family "story", handed down to my mom (she actually documented it on the inside cover of our baby book back in the early 1960s.) In the story, one of her ancestors was the child of an English lord, brought to the village at Fryeburg by the famous doctor, Molly Ockett (also a relative), after he was injured escaping Colonial officials after stealing their horses. As he healed, the Englishman fell for the daughter of the Sachem, and, highlighting his own good lineage, convinced the Sachem he'd make a good son-in-law. Of course, after a year at Fryeburg, the Englishman tired of the good life, and left, abandoning his new family.

Now, we knew from historical documents that Molly Ockett lived in the mid-late 18th century, but there was no other "evidence" of the story I'd learned and passed on. That is, until the mid-1990's, when someone discovered the diary of one Henry Tufts, in some attic somewhere in Maine. Turns out old Henry wrote of his adventures as a horse thief, his narrowly escaping being caught while sustaining injuries, meeting up with Dr. Ockett and you know all the rest. Funny thing, though. Turns out old Henry was not in fact royalty. He merely made that all up to get Molly to help him, as well as getting into bed with the Sachem's attractive daughter.

Without Henry's written diary, our oral tradition would never have been viewed as a "reliable source" by historians. Only when the corroborating documents, which also unveils Tufts as a scoundrel and liar, does the non-written history gain credibility.

Now, I could go on, but instead, I suggest reading all of Paper beats rock and the spoken word by Susan Harjo in Indian Country Today. Here's a sample:

In traditional Native cultures, a person's word is sacred and history told by one generation to the next is trusted.

Increasingly in modern American society, Native oral history accounts are disbelieved until and unless they can be substantiated by documents from non-Native sources. Some of these sources seem to have full-time jobs coming up with documents to undercut Native oral history, especially involving ongoing court cases.

One of the many ''Indian experts'' on the federal payroll - a Smithsonian linguist - recently produced a sketchy paper to support his claim that Indians dreamed up the term ''redskins'' and that it wasn't insulting at the outset. He cited other white men from the 1800s who wrote that Indian men used that term to describe themselves.

Of course, the words of the Indian men were translated by white men, but the linguist's paper does not make that point; and there is no record of what Native-language words the Native men actually used. Another white man - a reporter for The Washington Post - made the linguist's paper a news story, without making any of these linguistic points.

Native oral history relates that ''redskins'' originated in the days when white officials paid white bounty hunters monies for proof of ''Indian kill.''

One bounty proclamation from the Massachusetts Bay Province in 1755 required ''pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the [Penobscot] Indians.'' It promised to pay 50 pounds for male prisoners; 25 pounds for female or boy prisoners; and 40 pounds for scalps of males and 20 pounds for scalps of females and boys ''that shall be killed and brought in as Evidence of their being killed.''

Since bounties were paid on a sliding scale for Indian men, women and children, the bounty hunters had to produce either the whole bodies or the skinned genitalia in order to authenticate their claim. Scalps from the heads alone would not provide the required proof of adulthood or gender.

Before Native people located documentation of bounty hunting, that heinous practice was denied by most non-Native historians and government officials. Because Native people have not found the documents spelling out that the bloody custom of skinning Indians resulted in the term ''redskins,'' many non-Indians deny there is a connection at all. When and if such documentation is found, their response is likely to be ''so what.''