term for whiteman, evil, etc.

[Koontz John E]

>>From Nasatir, A.P.  1990.  Before Lewis and Clark:  Documents Illustrating
the History of the Missouri, 1785-1804, ...

I.296

This is from a series of observations by Jean Baptiste Trudeau or Truteau,
a fur trader, some of which seem to be extremely valuable, and others
perhaps a little bizarre, illustrative of the difference in the moral
outlook of a fur trader and a modern reader, if nothing else.  However, of
interest in the context:

"... the Indians of this country [the lower and middle reaches of the
Missouri] do not know any distinction between the French, Spanish,
English, etc., calling them all indifferently White Men or Spirits."

Unfortunately he doesn't specify the terms, but his assertion is
consistent with the probable etymologies of various of the terms we've
been seeing, at last as far as "Spirit" is concerned.

He goes on to say, "It is said that formerly the Ricara nation held us in
such great veneration that they gave us a sort of worship, having certain
festivals at which they offered us the choicest morsels, and even threw
into the river robes which had been dyed and dressed skins decorated with
feathers as a sacrifice to the White Man.*

"I have been assured that the Cheyennes and other more distant nations
still practice this custom; while the Ricaras, through having for so many
years associated with the Sioux and Panis Mahas have changed the ideas
which they have inherited from their ancestors in regard to the White Man
whom they regarded as divinities.  Now they consider us only in so far as
we supply them with the merchandise which we bring, and which is so
necessary to them ..."

*Marginal notation:  "Several old people of this tribe have told me this
as a fact."

This was in 1795.

I don't know if there are any other references to this "cargo cult"
phase in relations, and I'd have to say that it's only exposure to
non-technical descriptions of the later "cargo cult" in the South Pacific
that makes story more or less credible to me.  Truteau seems to rather
regret the passing of this phase, which it seems he never encountered
directly.  He does devote a great deal of space to reporting the past and
present amenability of the various groups he met to the bargaining
paradigm and their gullibility in terms of it, their propensity to
arbitrary pricing, their inclination to manipulate upstream trade, etc.
"Gentle" groups understood bargaining and settled for exchange rates that
made the trade profitable.  Others did not and might progress to
expropriation or personal violence if denied a particular price, or if
refused a trade for personal goods that were not for sale.  Of course,
trade existed before the fur trade in pre-contact times, and is attested
archaeologically, but the details were possibly different, and the rules
and rates of exchange clear to both sides.

In any event there are definitely references in the literature on the
Missouri fur trade to attempts by various groups, the Kansas, Omahas,
Arikaras and Dakotas being particularly notorious at various points, to
control trading with upriver or competing groups.  The trade was a serious
matter for both sides, with both sides having a certain desperation for
what the other could offer, and exploring all possible ways of
manipulating the mysterious others into cooperating.  Perhaps there was a
phase in which Europeans were regarded as spirits whose benificence could
be manipulated by spiritual paradigms, and the nomenclature of this period
leaves traces, even though other, more effective paradigms were adopted
subsequently.  And also, one might speculate, as some of the disadvantages
of the incursion of Europeans became more appallingly obvious.