intermixing of cultures

[Mike Cleven]

At 10:42 PM 6/20/99 -0700, David Lewis wrote:
>This discussion has been interesting and reveiling of where some
>listmembers are in terms of understanding Northwest history. I would like
>to write some challenging things which are going to make some angry. But,
>too much I have heard seen and heard discussions about native peoples,
>without them being involved... this reminds me of one of the big problems
>with anthropology and archaeology...
>
>Continually I have heard of the stabilization of CJ after white settlement.
>This position needs to be further defended and fully cited in order to
>satisfy my doubts. Of course all recorded CJ is historic, it is the nature
>of how science has divided the time and event line. However, many
>linguists, including Hymes have written that CJ crystallized before white
>contact. I have written on this before. How else can the prevelance of
>Indian words and phonology be accounted for.

In my layman's understanding of linguistics, isn't a pidgin a corruption of
one tongue, while a creole is a synthesis of two or more - one that attains
its own unique identity and expression?  The need for a pre-Jargon jargon
in the complex linguistic geography of the Northwest seems ultimately
necessary and highly organic; the pre-Jargon jargon could even be very much
older than the 1700s; there must at least have been something like it to
enable Salishan speakers to communicate with Wakashan speakers, or
Chinookans with Sahaptians.  Learning one another's languages, perhaps, but
only so many people would have the experience, situation, and/or ability to
completely master a neighbouring and highly different language.
_Something_ like the Jargon had to come about; that it was primarily of
Nootkan-Chinookan fusion, with some Salishan, did not mean that it would
stay thus, or that it could not have arisen somewhere else from different
components, given sufficient trade and contact.

>
>In Oregon, the native people mixed very well with all other peoples. If you
>look at the details of how many people remained alive from acts of  White
>settler genocide on Indians you will find that of individual bands and
>villages, usually about a dozen people made it to the reservation. And, the
>reservations were built as much to keep the Whites out as keep the Indians
>in. Of course I can not speak for all Indian tribes or reservations in
>Oregon, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Klamath had a somewhat different
>experience than Western Oregon. Cities like Portland and Eugene are what I
>call "bubble communities" in the midst of a sea of racism. What I have
>learned is don't be caught alone off the I-5 corridor or anything can happen.

As in many parts of BC - in reference to being off the I-5 Corridor, that
is; although I often worry more about the baseball-cap redneck set
(although some of the real old guys might even know some Jargon!).


>While I am not a CJ speaker, many of my family were and are, we are all
>mixed blood. But why is this an issue? From all I know neighboring people
>intermarried with one another readily in all areas of the world. Indian
>people intermarried with Indian people of other nations all the time. This
>is the same for English, French, Germans etc. The term White seems to refer
>to a political and national stance more than anything else. It is not a
>race to me, how would anyone define it? So my point is mixing and
>intermarriage is not something out of the ordinary. In America it is
>focussed on because of the history of racism and scientific theories of
>racial purity. But who really is racially pure? What does that mean? Is
>purity actually stagnation?

I trust you understand I take great pains with my use of language and
perspective in making the historical comments that I have made for my part.
 I always try to be self-consciously aware of my place as a non-native in
speaking about native history, and respectful of the many issues involved
in presenting such views.  And I have always disliked the use of the term
"white" as a collective group (given the differences and prejudices that
exist within "European-ness" or "white-ness") and have always tried to
remind the reader of the prevalence of a _diverse_ non-native - but not
necessarily white - influx here, from Asians and Hawaiians through West
Indians and Mexicans and others, including natives from other regions and
heritages, as indeed are present within our group.  It's clear from the
early days of the region, at least, that a more liberal attitude towards
marrying the children of the dominant culture in the region prevailed,
which became overwhelmed as more and more "civilization" was imported.  And
it must be still pretty popular, given the large number of
native/non-native couples of my acquaintance, even here in Vancouver.
People are people, and love knows no bounds....or so it's said.  Even my
"pure" Norwegian half is said to contain Scots, Icelandic, Irish, Danish,
Frisian, Dutch and even Spanish blood; hardly "pure Norwegian", if such a
thing could even exist.