The Red Record

[E.P. Grondine]

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.

Hi educatedindian -

While one might think or hope this might be the case, from what I've seen there are very limited academic resources for Eastern Native America studies, as well as for the preservation and presentation of sites. For example, acquaintances of mine are actually struggling to raise money to save the major site of Tecumseh's and Tenskawatawa's Prophetstown at Greeneville, Ohio. In the meantime, while the National Park Service should be taking over operation of
the world heritage class sites at Newark and Fort Ancient from the Ohio Historical Society, so far they have shown no interest. I attribute this to the deficiencies of our former president's appointees at the National Park Service; but this is just conjecture on my part.

Thus Oestreicher could be an "independent scholar" for reasons having little to do with the quality of or acceptance of his study of the Walam Olum.

shkaakwus seems to be concerned that a "recent" (say about 1400 CE) Lenape arrival in the east would somehow jeopardize their land claims there, and claims to current rights there. I don't think he needs to worry about that, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps his frustrations are leading him to insulting behavior.

I myself am a little more concerned about the climate collapses that led to earlier migrations in the Americas, as it is a certainty they will happen again. Generally, from what I have seen, starvation can lead a people do things they otherwise would not consider.

My offer to Oestreicher for a trade still stands.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

[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?

Bubo, are you ignoring the question?

[educatedindian]

Oestreicher could be an "independent scholar" for reasons having little to do with the quality of or acceptance of his study of the Walam Olum.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

I stressed that also. Some independent scholars do very good work in any case.

These are the comments I referred to. Oestreicher admits many scholars and Lenape don't accept his arguments about the WO, but claims it's due to ignorance, either 1. scholars not having yet read his work, or 2. Lenape not knowing their own culture.

I have no idea how he could make such a claim, unless he claims to know the education of everyone he disagrees with. To say that about the Lenape, it's arrogant bordering on insulting for an outside anthropologist to lecture Natives on not knowing their own culture.

-----------------

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-amindian&month=0510&week=d&msg=kkvvAXpApfs4DIkd%2bNQuSg&user=&pw=
"....so Many books have already been written endorsing the epic that other scholars Outside the field such as Velie are apparently not even
aware of the new findings.
....some young Lenape unacquainted with their own language and traditional ways and eager to reclaim their heritage, have become enthusiastic advocates for the document.

David M. Oestreicher"

[BuboAhab]

Bubo, are you ignoring the question?
[/quote]

No, Speck does not need to be re-worded. To find out more, read his book called The Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony V2.

[bls926]

Bubo, are you ignoring the question?

No, Speck does not need to be re-worded. To find out more, read his book called The Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony V2.

Deflection much?

I'm not asking you to reword Speck. I'm asking why you quoted that particular passage from Speck at that particular moment. One more time, the question is: What is this supposed to mean? Is there a reason for quoting Speck as regards maturity, ridicule, or censure?

[BuboAhab]

Specks statement applies to this coversation and speaks for itself. "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."

[Moma_porcupine]

I haven't been keeping track of this thread as I don't know anything about what is being discussed .

I'm just responding to what I have noticed about Shkaakwus's debating style. I'm not sure I agree with banning Shkaakwus, but in my own experience I have found this person to be stubronly set in the conclusion they want to reach, dishonest in the debating tactics they use to maintain their position , and they are rude, inflammatory and insulting to anyone who doesn't accept their conclusions.
 
1. Shkaawus often proves his conclusions using other information which he presents as factual. The problem is, often a closer examination of these facts shows they are only being assumed to be true and they may not be facts at all .  Conversely if some facts don't fit with the conclusion he wants to arrive at, he often pretends it doesn't exist or minimizes it's importance.

2. Shkaawus often either neglects to fully investigate the validity of the information he uses to support his case, or he neglects to present an adequet explanation of why he believes his information to be true .

3. Shkakwus frequently cites historical facts to support his conclusions without showing how this historical fact actually connects to his conclusion. In some instances when he is asked to explain this, he admits there is no connection.

4. If Shkaakwus has any real qualifications as a historian he would be well aware he often resorts to the dishonest debating tactics described above. His conclusions as he presents them, often sound like they are based on documented facts, but on closer examination these "facts" frequently turn out to be a lot of unsubstantiated smoke and mirrors. Even though there is some major gaps and disconnections in Shkaakwus's presentation, he is often needlessly inflammatory , rude and sarcastic to people who don't accept his conclusions.   

If I go over my past conversations with Shkaakwus in other threads and point out specific examples of this , it will pull this thread off topic, but if anyone reads through the debate in the thread linked to below, there is lots of examples...

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2215.0

In the thread above I pointed out a number of the obvious problems with Shkaakwus's so call historical expertise. I did this as respectfully and gently as possible and I didn't reply to his last post pointing out how his explanations once again don't seem to support his conclusions...  I figured people would notice these things for themself without me explictly pointing them out.

Maybe I needed to be more aggressive and sarcastic, but I'm not comfortable doing that. People need to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions.   

Maybe it is different in New Jeresy but all the indigenous people I have known, who care about maintaining their culture and identity put a really high value on politeness and retaining the dignity this commitment brings.

In that context this comment quoted above , "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 bringing on censure of the older veterans." might be fitting as a reminder of these values....

I don't see where Shkaakwus's general attitude of sarcasm and rudeness respects these values....

Like I say, I'm not sure I agree with Shkaakwus being banned for this, but then on the other hand I'm surprised he was even allowed back here, after posting here before, and then trashing all the threads he participated in by deleting all his posts, and even deleting a whole thread and everybody else's posts -

Shakaawus did this over on the AITF too.     

IMO, that in itself should be proof of how self centered, rude and disrespectful this person can be.

Sorry to reply to this and risk pulling this thread further off topic. If it's appropriate maybe this could be split into a discussion about Shkaakwus or the problems of personal biases / loyalties / egos, interfering with historical research in general...

(edited to fix confused numbering)

[bls926]

Specks statement applies to this coversation and speaks for itself. "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."

That's the best two-step I've seen in a good while. I thought I knew where you were going with this, just wanted to see if you were man enough to actually say it. I see it took Moma to put your thoughts into words.

. . . Maybe it is different in New Jeresy but all the indigenous people I have known, who care about maintaining their culture and identity put a really high value on politeness and retaining the dignity this commitment brings.

In that context this comment quoted above , "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 bringing on censure of the older veterans." might be fitting as a reminder of these values....

I don't see where Shkaakwus's general attitude of sarcasm and rudeness respects these values....

Bubo, if you're questioning Ray's age and/or maturity, you really need to read more. Know your subject before making snide comments. Ray has been studying the Lenape, their history, their traditions, their language, since before you were born. He is one of the few fluent Lenape speakers in New Jersey. Ray will tell you he isn't fluent, because he doesn't know every word in the language. However, his command of Lenape is probably better than your English. His isn't only book-knowledge, he knows the people. Using the above quote from Speck shows your immaturity, arrogance, and rudeness.

[bls926]

Y'all may say a lot of things about Ray, but no one can say he's dishonest or doesn't know his facts. Is he stubborn? Absolutely! Is he opinionated? Without a doubt! As I said in an earlier post, we each have our own way of expressing our thoughts, opinions, and knowledge. Y'all think Ray is rude and condescending; I've never experienced that. Moma, you and I both have been accused of many things in our quest for the truth. There are some out there right now that are thinking I haven't been completely honest because I didn't post details of a conversation I had. I gave the final outcome, but not all the details. Is that dishonesty? People have accused you of being a whole lot of things, Moma; rude being one of the minor ones. I've never found you to be rude. You ask the hard questions and don't beat around the bush. Neither one of us like to sugar-coat things, but does that make us rude or condescending? I don't think so.

Ray has studied the Lenape for over half his life. I wouldn't question anything he told me about their history, traditions, or language. I trust him. I know you've disagreed with him about the Sand Hill, and recently about Sam Beeler in particular. Since this isn't the Beeler thread, I will only say this . . . Do not let Claire Garland's lies cloud your judgement.

As for Ray's deletions here on NAFPS . . . I don't know what happened back then; I wasn't a member. As for what happened on AITF . . . If you aren't a member, then you don't know what happened there either. I am a member of AITF. If I were y'all, I wouldn't make any assumptions.

I think it speaks poorly for this forum that after someone has been banned from posting, those who he was debating are allowed to throw mud. The pokes and jabs are reminiscent of the playground. Where's that [childish insult] button when you really need it.

[Moma_porcupine]

Bonnie I don't want to argue with you . In most situations I respect your opinion. Here we seem to disagree but thats OK. If you want I can make a list of stuff your friend Shkaakwus has said which i consider needlessly inflamatory, rude and condescending. I could show this to you privately, or post it publicly , but as you are a smart lady and can read what he wrote yourself, I would feel kind of disrepectful of your own way of thinking to try and force my way of seeing this on you. As you rightly point out what is rude and what isn't, is largely in the eyes of the offended.

Al can be a bit ruthless when it comes to stopping people from flaming and making insulting comments. I know he did this to me once for saying someone was whiney. But I respect what he does , because even if it sometimes seems a bit unfair it forces people to be polite.

And Shkaakwus is only banned if he refuses to apologize for comments which according to the standards of this message board are considered too personal and inflamatory. It's pretty easy to figure out what those standards are , and to try and stay within an acceptable range of self expression. There is good reasons to maintain those standards . So I don't see the guy as much of a victim...

As for you allegation that Claire Garland is a liar... I haven't seen any evidence of this , though it's entirely possible this exists but hasn't been clearly explained. As far as i have seen , there does seem to be quite a bit of evidence that supports what Claire Garland is saying.

If you would like me to explain more clearly why I think Shkaakwus is dishonest in how he selects information to support his own conclusions, feel free to ask about it in the thread on Sam Beeler or privately.

Apparently one of us is wrong, but if we both care about finding out the truth, this shouldn't be a problem, and I don't mind if i find out it's me.

Though i don't know enough about the WO to have an informed opinion, from the bit I read , without knowing all the details, I tend to be more in agreement with Shkaakwus on this one. But as i already pointed out, because of his seemingly selective use of knowledge,  I don't trust him as a source...

     

[BuboAhab]

"That's the best two-step I've seen in a good while."

- Bls did not hook me into his trap of changing this discussion from fact to opinion.

"Ray has been studying the Lenape, their history, their traditions, their language, ..."

- Then why did he ignore the facts about birchbark scrolls?

"[Personal attacks and insults]."
- Have you seen a trend that personal insults do not belong in this discussion? Lets try to stay on topic and have a civilized discussion please.

[bls926]

"That's the best two-step I've seen in a good while."

- Bls did not hook me into his trap of changing this discussion from fact to opinion.

You really don't pay attention to what's been posted. Where'd you get the idea that I'm a guy, especially since Moma called me "Bonnie" and said I was "a smart lady"? Or do you only read/comprehend what you want? Oh, and by the way, your quoting Speck about maturity, ridicule, and censure was most definitely your opinion.

"Ray has been studying the Lenape, their history, their traditions, their language, ..."

- Then why did he ignore the facts about birchbark scrolls?

In regard to the Lenape?

"[Personal attacks and insults]."
- Have you seen a trend that personal insults do not belong in this discussion? Lets try to stay on topic and have a civilized discussion please.

Do not presume to lecture me about the tone of this forum. This is not flaming; this is healthy debate. You want to see insults and attacks, check out a couple of the other threads around here. But, since you're wanting to keep this discussion "on topic" and "civilized", please follow your own advice.

[BuboAhab]

Continuity that the Walam Olum, Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony by Speck, and Birchbark Scrolls by Dewdney are each related is seen in their reference to "Picking Berries".

]Rafinesque recorded in the Walam Olum first part "the first women picking berries"

Speck states that "Picking Berries" was done on the fourth, fifth, and sixth day of the Big House Ceremony.  Picking berries was symbolic of the attendants action of picking up wampum scattered about at the ceremony. The Wampum was stored in the mouth while the attendants made the sound "M+". This symbolized birds picking berries from bushes. Others state that the action used to reward the attendants for their efforts with Wampum (Money).

]Dewdney recorded in the Birchbark scrolls that "Picking berries" was symbolic of taking the divergent path. The divergent path was taken to go to the heart berry when one is making a "breakthrough".  Red Sky stated the temptation of the "strawberry" on the divergent path should be avoided.

The Lakota and Delaware custom of recording yearly "winter Counts" on skin or birch bark was also widely recorded. See the book entitled "The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian "

I suggest that "picking strawberries" was symbolic of temptation. Most importantly, this statement shows that at least this "portion" of the document is authentic.

[bls926]

The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway . . . Ojibwe

The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian . . . Lakota


So, why does Bubo mention either one in a discussion of the Walam Olum?

[BuboAhab]

The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway . . . Ojibwe

The Year the Stars Fell: Lakota Winter Counts at the Smithsonian . . . Lakota

So, why does Bubo mention either one in a discussion of the Walam Olum?

It is worthy to mention Ojibway and Lakota in discussion of the Walam Olum because each group used "Picture Writing" in recording their history.  The same phrases and symbols were actually used by these groups during important ceremonies, as shown above.  These groups also were "named" by Europeans and these names have little or nothing to do with who they actually were.