Native Intelligence: The Indians who feasted with the English colonists (2005) | Hacker News Reader

Native Intelligence: The Indians who feasted with the English colonists (2005)

smithsonianmag.com

52 pointsDrScump31 comments

Related - and inspired by a different Smithsonian Magazine article - The Story of Thanksgiving is a Science-Fiction Story.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/11/28/the-story-of-thanksgivi...

Good read, but I think the referred Smithsonian article is in fact this one.

I didn't notice - I just compared URLs. It turns out that the referenced link actually redirects to this one. Thanks!

This is one of the best articles I have read about the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving. The history given to kids in Massachusetts is overly simplified, and glosses over much of the pre-1620 history in New England (European and Native) and the complex political situation in the region.

I suspect Mass. actually gets a comparatively solid education because at least its "state history" goes back to the colonists. As a west coaster I remember the flow of N.A. history basically being Columbus->pilgrims->revolution with absolutely no effort spent to stress that 300 years passed between Columbus and the declaration of independence.

That's not much better than we had in MA, at least 30 years ago. Looking back the number of logic holes in the whole pilgrim mythology was ridiculous. Not sure how anyone believed it

I second this and would add that it is a reminder of just how deeply ignorant the white man remains. Maybe someday we will realize the wisdom of those who were here before us.

Being friendly to the colonists and attempting to trade was a fatal mistake. For quite some time, the native Americans had a military advantage over the colonists. Even at the time of the Revolutionary War, the nascent US had to treaty with the Delaware Indians for safe passage through their lands. Had the native Americans acted decisively when they had the opportunity, they might have saved their civilizations.

But this imagines a level of political unity and coordination that never existed among American aboriginals. Although guns, germs, and steel certainly helped European colonists conquer Native civilizations, internal disunity and politics played as large a role, and likely larger. European colonists everywhere took advantage of this fragmentation, regularly playing different states and ethnicities against each other in the Americas (and later elsewhere).

All too often it was advantageous for a government or politician to make a deal with Europeans for temporary individual benefit against older enemies, at the cost of the entirety of "Native Americans" (a category that didn't exist until 1492, and an identity that most of its members didn't consider themselves until centuries later).

Hard to imagine they would be able to do anything but delay the inevitable. The colonists had massive technological and organizational advantages. Sooner or later a proper army would come.

Sending a proper army, with the requisite supplies, across the world would have been a massive undertaking. Had the first expeditions had been annihilated, it might have been quite awhile before Europeans mustered up the necessary combination of interest and will to engage in that undertaking.

The natives weren't in a position of strength anyway. They were heavily impacted by plague and saw opportunity for trade.

The more organized tribes like the Iroquois did better.

"Indians".. really?

It differs from person to person, but I'm not really offended by the term. My tribe still calls their reservation Indian Island, so I don't think I'm alone.

The only problem I have with the term is that it's slightly confusing, as it's not clear if you're referring to people from India.

What about the term "American Indian"? I feel like that would be useful in headlines to set the context, so that then everyone knows which "Indian" is being referred to.

American Indian also includes native populations from both Canada, Mexico, and arguably South America.

The only term that avoids all confusion is the term "Native American". It technically has the same connotations as "American Indian", but in common use it's understood to mean the Natives in the areas of the United States.

This is why actasasabuffoon stated he wasn't offended by the term 'Indian', there are some who insist on using the term 'Native American' and get offended when referred to as 'Indian'.

He was pointing out he's not among those who get offended by the term and generally the only times he feels the differentiation matters is when you're clarifying 'Indian' or 'Native American'.

Of course the term 'American Indian' is also good enough to clarify, but if we're talking about using terms in titles then 'Native American' is really the best term to use if you're unable to provide context in the title itself.

  The only term that avoids all confusion is the term "Native American"

The Canadians use "First Peoples", which is arguably better.

interesting, I had never heard that term before.

I'm not offended. It's just silly that today it's still used.

You are not offended ? Your lack of offendedness is offending..

BTW, I find these unjustified down votes quite offending too..

We could call them what they called themselves, Wôpanâak(0). It would provide moral and spiritual support to their descendants, relatives, and foster cultures(3) who revive their Algonquian language(1)(4). We can even find more ways to clean up our misconceptions and perceive humanity's many worlds more accurately(2). To their credit, that land supports a lot of life.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampanoag_people#Tisquantum_.2...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algonquian_languages

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation

4: http://www.wlrp.org/ (some words below)

  Pumpkin: Pôhpukun (ponh-pu-kun) = ‘grows forth round’ 
  Moccasin: Mahkus (mah-kus) = ‘Covers the whole foot’ 
  Moose: M8s (moos) = ‘moose’ 
  Powwow: Pawâw (pa-waaw) = ‘s/he is healing/heals (someone)’ 
  Massachusetts: Mâsach8sut (maa-sa-choo-sut) = Place of the foothill.
  This was probably referring to the Blue Hills

That's how, well, everyone outside US calls them?

Uh, nope.

We tend to use aboriginal in Canada, or to actually refer to a people by name, e.g., Dene, Cree, Métis, Inuit; we used to use Indian, but it's inaccurate and often considered offensive.

Note: Aboriginal includes First Nations (what used to be called Indian, or native), Métis, and Inuit, so is the best, most comprehensive term.

In Britain we'd probably go with Native American in a formal context, American Indian might be used but probably isn't as common anymore I'd say, Red Indian would be understood as well but it's a bit dated, I assume that would be considered an offensive term in the US though.

So while we use/understand the term (American) Indians, Indian by itself would be considered to refer to people from India.

It's also how they were called inside the US at the time.

Except I as an Indian (as in from Republic of India), thought this was about English in India. I was totally surprised!

Same here. Not surprised though. Here in North America, you will generally find the terminology inadequate and confusing.

This is how I have it figured (for Canada / GTA area specifically):

Indian = Native American

Asian = East Asian

Brown = South Asian / West Indian

Black = African, West Indian / AA (African American)

In Poland it works the same. And also:

Hindu = Indian (i.e. a person from India)

Indian Buddhists, Jain, Muslims, etc. must love that.

I thought it was going to be an interesting perspective article about the Indians who supported and profited from British rule of India.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com