Code talkers.

[Rankin, Robert L]

Interesting.  All this stuff should be collected and the principals interviewed to the extent that it's still possible.  The participants didn't want to talk about it for a long time because it was "classified", but that is no longer the case (although I suppose interviewers should get a letter from the Pentagon saying so).
 
Bob

________________________________

From: owner-siouan at lists.colorado.edu on behalf of Justin McBride
Sent: Wed 4/30/2008 11:39 AM
To: siouan at lists.colorado.edu
Subject: Re: Code talkers.



I went to a code talker reception in Oklahoma City a year or two ago. I
heard something I'd never considered before. There have been several
instances in wars past in which two or more fluent tribal language speakers
from the same community happened to be in the same batch of soldiers (unit,
platoon, or whatever). In those cases, speakers were not infrequently called
upon to communicate by way of their shared language, especially in
close-fighting situations where the shouting of tactical orders may have
been overheard by enemy troops that may have knowledge of English. Soldiers
who did this sort of thing weren't code talkers per se, and have never been
recognized for their contributions to the war effort.

I recently heard that there were a few Kaw "code talkers," and ever since
that reception I've wondered if the designation may have actually referred
to this phenomenon of impromptu tribal language use in combat settings. I
wanted to ask one of those guys who was supposedly such a talker, Houston
Taylor, but he recently passed away. I guess these guys, however heroic,
aren't getting any younger.

-Justin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rankin, Robert L" <rankin at ku.edu>
To: <siouan at lists.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: Code talkers.


I'd guess that, over time, the "code(s)" could have been broken.  As several
have said, any language can be reduced to its grammar.  In the case of the
American Indian languages, they were used as tactical codes, not strategic
codes, as far as I know.  The latter are used for diplomatic and general
staff, etc. communications, and it was those that our cryptanalysts had the
best luck with against the Japanese and Germans.  Even if the Japanese had
painfully learned Navajo (or Seminole, Choctaw, Omaha, Comanche, etc.), they
would have had to be able to understand the language spoken rapidly by
native speakers under battlefield conditions.  How many of us could do that
with the Siouan languages we've studied for so many years!?  As an aside, I
don't think the alleged "difficulties" of the Navajo language had much of
anything to do with its success as a code.

On top of the language there was a fairly simple substitution code with
different words for various military terms, and they would have had to be
decrypted too.  All in all, it was a terrifically efficient system, and the
participants deserve all of the credit that has been bestowed on them,
however belatedly.

The contribution of the Navajos has become pretty well known, but I think
someone should try to interview any left who were from other tribes -- in
any war.  And, if not them, then their living relatives.  There's definitely
a book to be written there, and who better to write it than someone with
roots in the Native American community or a linguist?

Bob