Names

[David Gene Lewis]

Klahowya Tillikums, 

I have been looking at the Powell's document for years, yes I agree
this is the case for how he characterizes Natives and the lack of
science and math terms on his form. I'm wondering, has everyone seen
one of Powell's forms, I think I have one available on a PDF that I
can email to everyone, or those who ask. This is part of the Southwest
Oregon Research Project Collection and the PDF was created for the
Smith River Rancheria by Humboldt State University from their SWORP
materials. 

Yet another example of how anthropology has biased information about
Native peoples and created stereotypes that live on, probably forever,
in society. Ie: anthropology creating the stereotypical image of the
native as been simple, or recreating the Rousseauian image of the
childlike savage. 

Thanks,
David

-------------------
> I’m with MJ on this. . . especially about the “humble”. 
> 
>  
> 
> Powell, by the way, for Ann, had no categories for math and science
in his
> document about which words should be collected. Since he controlled
> publication, people who wanted to be published (read “funded”)
needed to
> comply with Powell’s bigotry. (And Powell WAS a bigot; his
characterization
> of native peoples in the document is chilling). 
> 
>  
> 
> Mia
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Indigenous Languages and Technology
[mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of MJ Hardman
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:02 PM
> To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ILAT] Names
> 
>  
> 
> This has been of serious concern to me the whole of my professional
life.
> Although I only mention it when pressed — because of the viciousness
and the
> distortions and the ridicule — my theoretical construct of the
linguistic
> postulate is a way to operationalize the Lee-Sapir-Whorf (Dorothy
Lee got
> seriously written out) in a way that did not lead to the ranking
described
> below and in a way that seemed to me to get at what they-all were
attempting
> to make understood.  It was also a way for me to discuss the
languages I was
> working with without getting those ranking reactions.  It also takes
the
> focus off of vocabulary — far too easy a game to play — and onto
perceptual
> patterns.  And there, if you please to play the ranking game,
linearity and
> singularity don’t come off quite so nicely as fat dictionaries do. 
Grammar
> in so many Ndn languages is so beautiful and complex and can leave
the
> rankers feeling a bit humble.  Not bad.
> 
> MJ
> website:  http://grove.ufl.edu/~hardman/
> 
> 
> On 04/25/2006 12:37 PM, "Ann Rowe" <AEROWE at AOL.COM> wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 4/25/2006 8:02:51 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> MiaKalish at LEARNINGFORPEOPLE.US writes:
> 
> The discussion of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was vicious, is still
ongoing,
> and is very detrimental to the view of American languages and the
people who
> spoke them. I would speculate that one of the great difficulties in
> revitalization is that American languages are considered "worthless"
because
> they ostensibly "lack so many concepts". So as you can see,
understanding
> what Whorf was saying maybe be critical to language revitalization
in a lot
> of ways: Documentation, conceptualization, analysis. 
> 
> I once sent out an email asking if there were math words in Ñdn
languages,
> and you sent back a note telling me that I would be able to find
them using
> Western concepts and direct translation. This is in fact correct,
but what I
> began to realize from this and other responses is that despite the
vast
> physical representation of math and science around us, there is
almost none
> in the collected languages. And I said, Now why is that? 
> 
> 
> Hello, everyone and I hope you do not mind my barging into this
discussion
> with a minimally informed opinion.  I am not a linguist by training,
merely
> a historian.
> 
> But the two highlighted sentences in Mia's posting really jumped out
at me.
> The first clearly and absolutely deals with the question of
subjective
> valuation by the majority culture in a multicultural society. 
Rather than
> moving toward understanding how those concepts are perceived in the
culture
> which created the language, and then to an understanding of how they
would
> be spoken of orally and in written form, the presumption becomes
that, if
> the concepts are not readily apparent from the presumptions of the
majority
> culture's interpretation of how they should be presented, they are
concepts
> that are "absent" from the cultural base of the "other" language. 
It is, in
> essence, cultural imperialism at one of its worst phases as Mia
noted in the
> debate to which she was referring.  
> 
> In relation to the second statement - obviously, the reality could
be as
> simple as this:  perhaps native peoples felt no need to separate out
science
> and math from the rest of living the way that western European
heritage
> cultures have.  That would, in fact, mean that the language(s) would
not
> require additional terms.  This would be very similar to the idea of
"kaona"
> in Hawaiian language use - meaning has layers of depth and its
> interpretation goes beyond mere comprehension of a single word -
context,
> construction, and the purpose of the statement (why and for what it
was
> created) all modify the meaning of that single word.  Western
European
> cultures had to create the words to describe the concepts once they
> determined that math and science would exist separately from other
> activities in daily life.  
> 
> Just a few random ideas.    
> 
> Ann
> 
>  
> 
> 
David Lewis
University of Oregon
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde