Caddo ethnic terms

[Koontz John E]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Anthony Grant wrote:
> Following John Koontz' posting:
> > Given the prevalence of something like kanush for 'Frenchman' in the Texas
> > Plains area and the difficulty in the terminological and contract
> > chronology of getting from from Mexicanos for all Euroamericans but
> > primarily (presumably) the Spanish in Mexico and then primarily the
> > French, and finally just the French, I wonder if kanush doesn't have some
> > etymology other than Mexicanos?
>
> ... At least in Texas there were Spanish-speaking people responsible
> to Mexico (for instance people attached to Franciscan missions) before
> there were francophones, so that the first whites that many Natives
> would have met would have been 'Mexicans'm, be they Hispanic,
> Tlaxcaltecs, or whatever.  I don't know too well how things would have
> been in Lousiana, although the number of early loans in languages of
> the Gulf which are from Spanish exceeds in number and spread those
> which come from French.  Even if they came via Mobilian, Mobilian had
> to get them from somewhere.

The problem is that, in my understanding of the sociology and
ethnolinguistics of the situation, the Spanish - metropolitan, creole, or
mestizo - from the presidency (or viceroyalty?) of Mexico were never
refered to as Mexicans, by themselves or others.  In that period the term
Mexican would have meant - I think - a native speaker of Nahuatl.  The
term Mexican would only refer to a Spanish speaker from Mexico after the
Mexico became independent and the term Mexico acquired a new, nationalist
significance.  Prior to that event the term Mexican would have been
functionally closer to "Ottawa" or "Ojibwa," i.e., it would have implied a
native agent or client, and hence it would not have been a very likely
source for a term for a Spanish speaker or a European in general.

I suppose there may have been a point at which creoles and especially
mestizos began to call themselves Mexicanos just as Americans began
calling themselves Americans to some extent before independence.  But
before a development of national sentiment, calling oneself a Mexicano or
an American would have been tantamount to admitting a degree of social
inferiority.  "Yes, I'm a colonial."

So, the term Mexican would not have been available until after c. 1810,
probably not until after 1821.  And if it had been borrowed at that point,
it would likely have replaced an earlier term, since the Caddo had been
interacting with both the French and the Spanish regularly for over 100
years at that point.  Either it replaced an earlier general term for
'whiteman', or an earlier term for 'Spanish speaker', or there was no
earlier term.  It seems unlikely it would have replaced an earlier term
for French speaker immediately.  In any of these cases it is hard to see
how, starting at that point it could have become a specific term for
French speakers, whose ascendency had ended before this (in 1763 or 1803).

So, it seems far more likely that the term came into existence at a point
and place when the French were the usual sort of whitemen and was
specialized to Frenchmen when regular contact came to include varieties of
whitemen other than Frenchmen.  This might have happened over the whole
range of kanus ~ kanus~ usage all at once, or the term may have
specialized with one group and spread to the others after specialization
(but before it became irrelevant).

Amy of these scenarioes would make it unlikely that the source of the word
is Mexicanos.  By the time that term is likely to be available, Mexican
was in Texas on the verge of being more likely to have been borrowed in
its English form than its Spanish one.

I may be wrong in explaining Kanus^ as a development of les Anglois 'the
English', but it does seem more likely than Mexicanos, The extreme irony
of the French being known etymologically as 'the English' is not lost upon
me.

Of course I am in the odd situation of having to suppose that the term
(sa)kanus^ was available in a generic sense 'whiteman' and that
subsequently Frenchmen became the dominant whitemen in the area.  I think
the Lower Mississippi is actually a good context for this.  The French
were the most prominent earliest explorers of the area (after de Soto),
and used Algonquian languages, especially Ottawa/Ojibwa as contact
languages.  In such a context one might well expect an opposition
between 'regular whitemen' and '(sa)kanas' to result in a presence
mainly of the latter.

The river and the area east of it were disputed between the English and
the French in the 1600s and early 1700s, with the English being generally
more successful (I think the Chickasaw were among their more prominent
agents).  This might provide the context for referring to whitemen
generally as sakanas^, as most of them would have been 'the English'.
But matters settled out so that from 1763 the Louisiana area was in
Spanish hands, but with most of the actual European residents and traders
being French colonials.  After 1763 the Spanish provided mainly the
governors and some troops.  This would have been an excellent context in
which to distinguish the French as ordinary '(sa)kanas^' as opposed to the
newly influentiual Spanish.  And from that point the chance of meeting a
real (sa)kanas^ would have gradually decreased in favor of meeting ones
who referred to themselves as Americans or people from some specific
English colony.

The Ohio Valley Algonquian languages provide a reasonable source for the
term (sa)kanas(^), but to make this likely I'd prefer to have some
evidence of the term in circulation in Muskogean, Tunica, Natchez, etc.,
at least in the early period.

JEK