The Red Record

[shkaakwus]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"Again, and it's no laugh, IF Rafinesque composed the final section of the Walam Olum (and I do think that is possible, though not confirmed) then please consider his eloquent statement of the European depradations when evaluating his character."

Rafinesque authored the entire Walam Olum, and that final bit says nothing about his "eloquence."  If he hadn't written that from a Lenape point of view, his forgery wouldn't have been much of a hoax.  It is a laugh, and the joke's on you.

I've had enough of this, myself.  Read Oestreicher's dissertation before attempting to pose as an expert on this.  Until then, Wawullamallessil!

[BuboAhab]

Rafinesque translated the entire Walam Olum, as Brinton pointed out with the help of another individual. That indivual knew the Lenape/ Delaware/ Ojibwe language.  

"In several cases the figures or symbols appear to me to bear out the corrected translations which I have given of the lines, and not that of Rafinesque. This, it will be observed, is an evidence, not merely that he must have received this text from other hands, but the figures also, and weighs heavily in favor of the authentic character of both."(Brinton, Page 157)

Walam Olum is authentic. Raf. preserved it. Squire later saw Raf's Manuscript materials and published on it. Read Weslager - Schoolcraft stated his objection is that he knew of no other examples of native writing. Now we do know of other examples including Birchbark scrolls, Book of Wild, and smithsonian artifacts.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5k34LON-MUwC&pg=PA77&dq=walam+olum#PPA84,M1

The detractors really do need to learn the scientific method. They will then understand that evidence is required to support a hypothesis. Objective, scientific proof has been given that confirms the authenticity.

[shkaakwus]

Bubo:

I've read all that and more.  Now, go read Oestreicher's dissertation and find out why Brinton, Squier, Weslager and you were and are wrong.  Until then, you're just blowin' smoke.

[E.P. Grondine]

E. P. Grondine writes:

"Again, and it's no laugh, IF Rafinesque composed the final section of the Walam Olum (and I do think that is possible, though not confirmed) then please consider his eloquent statement of the European depradations when evaluating his character."

Rafinesque authored the entire Walam Olum, and that final bit says nothing about his "eloquence."  If he hadn't written that from a Lenape point of view, his forgery wouldn't have been much of a hoax.  It is a laugh, and the joke's on you.

I've had enough of this, myself.  Read Oestreicher's dissertation before attempting to pose as an expert on this.  Until then, Wawullamallessil!

Speaking of posing, I've clearly stated some here the reasons for some of the problems I have with Oestreicher's analysis, as well as the uses to which it is put.

I have also stated the reasons why I made that effort.  You haven't told us is why this is so important to you, so why don't you do so before you go, shkaakwus?






 

[shkaakwus]

You're not paying attention, Ed.  On page 6 of this topic, educatedindian wrote:

"You get quite worked up on the subject, and I wonder why."

To which I replied, (on page 6, April 24th):
 
'Worked up?'  Yeah.  I guess I do get 'worked up' when I see frauds, phonies, and snake-oil salesmen (which Rafinesque was, literally, in his later life, by the way!) making fools out of people through their deceits.  I thought that's what this forum was all about.

[BuboAhab]

The detractor did not answer the question. My guess is that this person is either a personal friend of oestr. from new jersey or someone that believes in a turf war. Seems that Napora was correct about careerism infecting academic research.

[educatedindian]

Since I'm being brought back into this, I may as well make a point I should have made earlier.

SW seems to think Oestreicher's work is the final word on the subject, or should be. I grant you he's done important work, well done work, valuable work. But if it were as definitive as you claim, or if academia accepted it as widely as you claim, then Oestreicher would be regarded the same. Universities would be clamoring to have him teach there.

An online search shows that Oestreicher recently lists himself as an "independent scholar." This is the polite way in academia to say not working right now, at least not teaching. Sometimes the term also is used for amateur historians, but that doesn't apply to him.

There are perfectly valid reasons he may not be working, personal, family, etc. I know of a case of one historian who got fired over a union drive at his university and has trouble getting hired since then. For all I know he may choose to not work, have money from his family, or some other valid reason.

But sometimes very controversial positions taken in one's work make it harder to get hired. University administrators don't want the grief and/or faculty in his field disagree strongly enough to object to them working there.

I stress I don't know for certain why he's not, best as I can tell, working.  But I do know that if his work were THE work on the WO as you think, and if all scholars in the subject accepted it as such, schools would be making him offers left and right.

So I stand by my earlier statements that scholarship is still divided. You repeatedly stomping your feet saying, "Agree with Oestreicher!" won't change that. It does mean we can and should look at all opinions, and much of those opinions would not have been brought up here had this discussion been shut down as you repeatedly demanded.

[shkaakwus]

educatedindian:

I'm not going to reply to somebody who deletes and mutilates my posts, at will and with impunity.  Come on over to the Woodland Indians Forum and you and I can debate this, on equal terms.  (I'll tell you what I really think of what you just posted, here.)  Introduce yourself over there, then we'll have a little chat.  In the meantime, it speaks volumes that you'd rather guess what you think you know about Oestreicher's life and work (most of it wrong, btw) than actually refute any portion of his dissection of this giant hoax.  Of course, like Bubo and EPG, you haven't read Oestreicher's dissertation, either.  Now, who are those "scholars" who disagree with Oestreicher?  So far, you haven't named a single one. 

[E.P. Grondine]

You're not paying attention, Ed. 

Sorry, with my poor stroke damaged brain I tend to only pay attention to the important points.

On page 6 of this topic, educated indian wrote:
"You get quite worked up on the subject, and I wonder why."

I still wonder myself.

To which I replied, (on page 6, April 24th):
 
'Worked up?'  Yeah.  I guess I do get 'worked up' when I see frauds, phonies, and snake-oil salesmen (which Rafinesque was, literally, in his later life, by the way!) making fools out of people through their deceits.  I thought that's what this forum was all about.

I suppose that's really indicative of one way our approaches differ, shkaakwus. Given the state of 18th century medicine, my inclination is to ask for what medicinal purpose our eccentric French acquaintance was selling snake oil for?
Further, did he himself believe it worked, and was he doing it for public benefit?

As for what this forum is about, it's main focus is New Age Frauds and Plastic Saviors, currently operating con men, spiritual thieves. Of course, old and dead con men are fair game as well, and if after further consideration and research I arrive at the same conclusions you have, then I will announce it. How I would look into this  I stated in "Reconstructing Rafinesque" (date not certain, but a long time back); if you are in contact with him, I still hope that Oestreicher himself will agree to a trade or gift; I offer 467 pages for his 541, but mine have smaller type. Even if that were to happen time is quite important as well, and the Shawnee Primary or Principal Narrative remains for me of greatest interest, far more than Lenape traditions and the fate of their medewak, though those are also high concerns. Ojibwe traditions are also of greater interest for me, both the tradition of the shells and those concerning the V(W)endigo.

In the meantime, I will caution others, but I will also hold with those Lenape elders who consider that the Walam Olum preserves a "portion" of Lenape tradition.

Finally, I would hope that graduate students for many years to come will be re-examining Oestreicher's thesis very carefully, as that would appear to me to be a good approach to study of the Lenape people. I would also hope that Oestreicher moves beyond his earlier work to both/either a contact era history of the Lenape and/or a collection of the Lenapewak's own pre-contact historical traditions.

[educatedindian]

educatedindian:

I'm not going to reply to somebody who deletes and mutilates my posts, at will and with impunity.  Come on over to the Woodland Indians Forum and you and I can debate this, on equal terms.  (I'll tell you what I really think of what you just posted, here.)  Introduce yourself over there, then we'll have a little chat.  In the meantime, it speaks volumes that you'd rather guess what you think you know about Oestreicher's life and work (most of it wrong, btw) than actually refute any portion of his dissection of this giant hoax.  Of course, like Bubo and EPG, you haven't read Oestreicher's dissertation, either.  Now, who are those "scholars" who disagree with Oestreicher?  So far, you haven't named a single one.  

Oh brother. More of that pompous obnoxiousness from you, not mention intolerance of opposing views and a basic lack of manners.

Working the long hours I already do, I don't have time for this. I barely have enough time to do the bare minimum at NAFPS, much less getting into longer discussions that I wish I could.

The "mutilations" (Talk about a martyr complex! They were nothing more or less than your personal attacks on several people.) wouldn't be necessary if you could show the same maturity that's expected from the average middle school student, not to get abusive  or personal towards someone you don't agree with. In any college classroom, you'd have been kicked out long ago, if not expelled from campus had you continued what you've done in here.

We have bent over backwards for you, and it still hasn't gotten you to behave like a decent human being.

So excuse me if I'm not inclined to waste more time on this, esp since you can't even be bothered to read what's already on the thread. The italicized question above was already answered. See for yourself.

And it was also admitted to by Oestreicher himself on academic listservs. Do the research, I found in about half a minute what you were too lazy to find out on a subject so close to your heart.

And what I found on the question in bold.
http://www.nyhumanities.org/speakers/adult_audiences/lecture.php?lecture_id=929
"Dr. David Oestreicher
Independent Scholar....

Oestreicher is curator of the award-winning traveling exhibition, In Search of the Lenape....

Oestreicher...has worked as a lecturer, consultant, curator, and independent scholar."

If you have evidence he's working, rather than the past tense "has worked" of that website (other than part time grant work for a traveling exhibit) then tell us. The website is listed as being last updated March 20 this year.

But your rather ridiculous hero worship of the man has gotten you all tied up in knots. Even praising his work at length, followed by a mild dissent about whether each and every scholar praises him, turns you vengeful and vicious. Most people wouldn't get this worked up defending their own child. Again, why does this get you so worked up, other than your own childishness and pompously insisting everyone must agree with you on even the tiniest point?  

[shkaakwus]

Al:

I'll let the readers of this forum decide whether or not they believe in this hoax.  If anyone has the least interest in the truth of the matter, I've told them how to get a copy of Oestreicher's dissertation, which can be had for no more expense than a typical hardcover book of similar size; and, is as easy to order as any book you get at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.  If people aren't that interested, then who cares?  And, if [Insults removed] aren't interested enough to actually read the proof that the Walam Olum is a total forgery, but continue to defend it as an authentic product (or possible authentic product) of the Lenape, [Personal attacks removed] I can read and write Lenape.  I've read Oestreicher's works on this subject.  I'm telling you it's a fraud.  Believe or not.  [Personal attacks removed]

[Despite repeated warnings, he's continued the same childishness he's displayed in over a dozen posts. Banned from posting but not from the forum. Should he wish to apologize for his behavior the ban will be lifted.]        

[BuboAhab]

Moving on, a few avenues that are worthy of further research into Walam Olum symbolism include Birchbark scrolls (Dewdney) and the Delaware Big House ceremony (Speck). In my opinion these are related cermonies that are performed the same way and depicted on the scrolls. Both ceremonies show a remarkable amount of similairites in thier detail. Also, certain aspects of the big house ceremony compare with those discussed by Raf. in the Walam Olum.  This connection needs further research.

[bls926]

Ray has contributed much to this topic. He's the only Lenape speaker here; knows as much if not more about the Lenape than anyone here. We each have our own way of expressing our thoughts, opinions, and knowledge. I've never thought Ray was rude, condescending, or childish. Why have his posts been edited and deleted, while others have been left standing? If Ray's posts are considered childish by the moderators, then there are several others that could be viewed that way as well. Why has Ray been banned from posting? Isn't this cutting off your nose to spite your face? You deprive this forum of his vast knowledge and insight.

[BuboAhab]

The Delaware Indian Big House cermony by Speck states on Page 60
"maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringng on censure of the older veterans."

[bls926]

The Delaware Indian Big House cermony by Speck states on Page 60
"maturity is required before reciting the ceremony. Younger men are cautioned not to undertake the recitation unless they are well enough qualified to carry it out without provoking ridicule or even bringng on censure of the older veterans."

What is this supposed to mean? Is there a reason for quoting Speck as regards maturity, ridicule, or censure?