HISTORY OF THE HIDATSA

[Jimm GoodTracks]

There's no need to duel.  My original point has been made, namely, that
indigenous oral chroniclers may not expect to be given one iota of
credibility for their own accounts of their own history when there is a
popular different account by reputed "creditable" non-Native American
chroniclers.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan H. Hartley" <ahartley at d.umn.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: HIDATSA

> Jimm GoodTracks wrote:
> > It is agreed that L & C had no reason to misrepresent her, and there
> > is no suggestion of such on the part of the early day Hidatsa.  However,
it is rather ethnocentric to accept the
> > information on Bird Woman as understood and written by L & C in their
> > journals and then forthright, yet dismiss the history offered by the
very
> > people with whom this woman lived.

And that does not make for an objective historian.

At best, L & C were foreigners who
> > were traveling through the land of then indigenous country.  The fact
> > is that they spent only several months in Hidatsa country; they did
> > not understand the various cultures with whom, they communicated via
> > a minimum of three languages of not so great interpreteurs.  L & C
> > were two (2) people -- "Americans" -- and as such, their information
> > stands against a community of indigenous people who say simply that
> > he did not get the correct story.
>
> I don't claim infallibility for Lewis and Clark, but I do give their
> accounts credit as first-hand reports of Sacagawea. In fact, it seems
> "rather ethnocentric" to prefer the accounts of Hidatsas living  a
> century after the facts on which they report.

It is not a matter of "to prefer the accounts of Hidatsas..." but to
acknowledge their existance and give them credence equal to that of the
foreign explorers of their county.  The account of Bull Eye, the grandson of
Sakagawia, was also a first-hand report of his experience with his
grandmother and mother.  His elderly peers at the time the account was
given, also was a collaborated first hand knowledge of the old woman, her
daughter and the grandson, Bull Eye.

> (Your reference to two native Virginians as ""Americans"" -- implying
that, because of their
> European ancestry, they didn't really qualify -- also smacks of
ethnocentrism.)

No, there was no such implied nor suggested reference.  Perhaps it is a
personal bias being read in here.

> Following is part of Lewis's entry for 17 Aug. 1805: "Capt. Clark
> arrived with the Interpreter Charbono, and the Indian woman, who proved
> to be the sister of the Chif Cameahwait.

It seems that the "proved" relationship was based on appearences and from
the full bank of experiences of the writer's (Clark) own social encounters
and knowledge,
which did not include the indigenous cultural, social, kinship, etc.
lifeways.  Appearences can be deceiving. The extended and adoptive Native
family can be quite warm and embracing.
Furthermore, how is it that Sakagawia's name per se consistantly is in
Hidatsa language rather than Shoshoni?  It is not a practice to change the
name as such.

> "...the meeting of those people was really affecting, particularly between
Sah cah-gar-we-ah and an Indian
> woman, who had been taken prisoner at the same time with her, and who
> afterwards escaped from the Minnetares [Hidatsas] and rejoined her
> nation... we called them together and through the medium of Labuish
> [English to French], Charbono [French to Hidatsa] and Sah-cah-gar-weah
> [Hidatsa to Shoshone], ..."
>
> That seems pretty straightforward to me, and I don't see how even a
> naive ethnocentrism on Lewis's part could have twisted the facts of
> Sacagawea's origins so radically.

Again, the account has nothing to do with ethnocentrism of anyone.  What is
amiss here is a present day bias to ennoble Lewis to a pious infallibility
rather than a more mundane possiblity that indeed, his understanding of the
native people, situation(s),  and translations erred on the side of human
inaccuracy and/or misinformation.  History is filled with such
misinformation and misrepresentations -- sometimes quite innocently and
other times intentionally.  A good historian is a seeker of truth, rather
than a supporter of misconceptions.  That is what the List accomplishes here
with linguistical questions and rational analysis to render out the
mysteries of indigenous words, phrases and sentences.

> > if indeed, L & C's Journals are completely creditable, and are to be
> > taken as is, then the French have been spelling their names
> > incorrectly, to wit, "Shabono" [in lieu of Charbonneau], etc.,
>
> The journalists, especially Clark, were not as educated in spelling,
...and they often spelled as they heard, giving us valuable
> clues into the pronunciation of English and other languages of the time.

And those of us who have spent countless hours trying to decipher the
spellings of Native words and/ or language texts from such transcriptions
appreciate their attempts to record what they thought they heard as well as
the fact that they were not linguists by any stretch of the imagination.

> Their records are imperfect, but they're among the most important
> sources we have for the state of the trans-Mississippi lands in the
> early period of contact between whites and Indians.
> Alan

Indeed their records are imperfect and equally their records are among the
most important sources available for the early contact period.  And equally
so, are the records of the Native peoples who were also undeniable
participants on all these occassions.
Jimm
P.S.  As a final closing of this discussion on my part, hear the remarks of
a present day Native as she reflects on her own historical roots:

To: <iowaysonline at yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:10:13 -0700
Subject: Re: [iowaysonline] No answers here, just my 2 cents worth

Just watched "500 Nations" on the Discovery Channel last night.  It was
informative but, as usual, the Indians get the shaft.  History books do not
reflect the truth, we know, and hopefully will be rewritten to say how it
really was.  I was taught early on how  "Christopher Columbus sailed the
ocean blue in 1492", and that presidents like George Washington and Andrew
Jackson were to be somehow looked up to when they caused great suffering to
the Indian way of life.  It was heartbreaking to watch and gave me even more
reason to hold on to my Indian heritage.  Being Ioway to me is being a part
of the history and future of our tribe.  Keeping alive and passing down what
our elders passed on to us.  >