Hello folks,
Having just gotten back from my honeymoon, in Oregon, and read the back issues, one of which I commented on last night, of the current heehaw about how much better education was back when, I decided to include a clipping from the Portland Oregonian on last Tuesday. I would ask two questions for the revered elders in Math and History.
1. Could you figure out the numbers on this article? The pre-contact historical figures on all Indians in North America was placed at the turn of the 19th century by Mooney at 1 million. Since the figure paid out to the local California "hunters" after 200 years of plague and warfare and the decimation of the Eastern nations, including my own, was $1 Million where did they get all of those heads and scalps?
2. Did any of your history classes explore the 1,300 opera houses in Iowa and the connection of such to the constant slaughter that was going on at the same time? Were you older folks taught about the slaughter? Consider the second article from a University Anthropology Class (UNC? North Carolina?). Students in New York public schools are given such questions as well. Does this negate the "Great Books" curriculum or is it a much more interesting question how such sublime works of the human mind could exist along side slavery, genocide and history as propoganda as was taught in my American History class at the University of Tulsa (in the middle of Indian Country) as late as 1961? And then there is the issue of those Jesuit schools in Canada.
Well have to go, hope you enjoy the read and will be interested in your thoughts.
Ray Evans Harrell.
PORTLAND OREGONIAN" 8/7/00
Tribal elders will retrieve brain of Ishi, 'last of
Yahi,' for burial
Ishi, his tribe wiped out, was treated as a scientific curiosity after he was found in California in 1911
From wire reports
SAN FRANCISCO - Elders from Northern California's Pit River tribe are scheduled to travel today to Washington, D.C., and bring back the brain of Ishi, often called "the last of the Yahi," for a sacred burial ceremony.
Ishi's brain will be taken from the Smithsonian Institution to the foothills of Mount Lassen. By reuniting it with his cremated remains and then burying it in Ishi's homeland in the foothills of Mount Lassen, tribal elders believe Ishi's troubled spirit finally will be set free.
In Northern California, many tribes, including the Yahi, were nearly wiped out by white bounty hunters during the gold rush years. One boasted of his blanket of scalps. Many were heralded as heroes,
In 1854 alone, the federal government paid the state of California $1 million in expense claims stemming from hunts. Some county governments paid bounties of $5 a head, 50 cents a scalp.
From 1850 to 1900, the California Native American population plunged from 200,000 to 50,000. In a span of about 20 years ending in 1870, Ishi's tribe plunged from about 400 people to near extinction.
(With math like this on the major wire services, how can we dare
to find fault with our offspring? Perhaps you can
explain it. REH )
"If there was anyone
exploited by non-Indians
to the max, it was Ishi.
Hopefully, he will be at
last at rest and at peace
andfree tojoin hisfamily
and ancestors.�
MICKEY GEMMILL,
MFMBER OF THE PIT RIVER TRIBE
AND PART OF THE DELEGATION
TRAVELING TO WASHINGTON, D.C.,
TO RETRIEVE ISM'S BRAIN
It was 1911 when Ishi first stumbled out of the wilderness alone near
Oroville, Calif., and into modern America. Found huddled
near a slaughterhouse and speaking a language no one could identify,
Ishi was soon dubbed the "Wild Indian of Oroville," a "savage," and made
headlines across the country.
Anthropologists took charge of Ishi, clothed him and put him on display as a living exhibit in a San Francisco museum.
Ishi's life would be forever changed. His existence, from the wilds of Northern California to his fanfare greeting on Market Street in San Francisco, has been chronicled by anthropologists, recorded on wax cylinders and taught to schoolchildren.
(And what did they pay him for all of this free performing time? REH)
"If there was anyone exploited by non-Indians to the max, it was Ishi " said Mickey Gemmill, a member of the Pit River tribe. "Hopefully, he will be at last at rest and at peace and free to join his family and ancestors." Gemmill is part of the delegation traveling to Washington, D.C., to retrieve Ishi's brain.
(Actually Stephen Jay Gould in the �Hottentott Venus� see below, has pointed out that the Hottentott Venus had another part of her anatomy pickled and placed next to Broca�s Brain in the Sorbonne in Paris; However, unlike Ishi, while she was alive and being displayed for her anatomical features, common to Hottentott women, she was paid a big salary and was learning to speak a fifth language on her nights off from the exhibit. REH )
Ishi worked in San Francisco for a time, sweeping floors for $25 a week at an anthropology museum where the University of California San Francisco Medical Center now stands.
(Science demands that those who perform, do some �real� work. A common problem when discussing the future of such on this list. REH )
Ishi's spirit was said to be disrupted upon his death in 1916 when University of California an-thropologist Alfred L. Kroeber offered Ishi's brain to the Smithsonian Institution. Kroeber told the curator there, "There is no one here who can put it to scientific use."
(I�ve always wondered how Kroeber�s daughter Ursula LeGuinn felt about all of this considering her books. REH)
Ishi's brain was then shipped to the Smithsonian, and it sat with other brains for decades in a stainless steel tank at the institution's warehouse in Maryland.
(I wonder if the Hottentott Venus would have been happier if she were at the Smithsonian? REH)
Last year, the brain was finally transferred to a jar in a ceremony attended by a delegation that traveled ftom Ishi's Oroville homeland to bum sage, healing grass and warm wood to purify the room. (It must have taken a lot of sage. REH)
Ishi's status in American lore grew after the 1961 publication of the book "Ishi in Two Worlds," written by Kroeber's wife, Theodora. The book was translated into 18 languages and became part of the history lesson plan for California fourthgrade students. Ishi's exact burial place, somewhere near the foothills of Mount Lassen, will be kept a secret.
(I wonder who got the royalties on that book? She wonder if she, like the Clinton�s, donated her royalties to charities for the children of California Indians, since the books were written on their lives. President Clinton is of Cherokee descent as well as others. REH)
The Smithsonian houses human remains from around the world, including more than 18,000 from Native Americans.
(The going rate for a full skeleton, according to Franz Boas, was
$600. They said the smell of fat rendered off of human bones,
was so strong around the Army Posts that the settlers avoided the places.
It was so expensive because they couldn't find Indians with heads still
intact. Science and the American Indian, Bieder, Univ.
of Okla. Press. REH)
http://www.unc.edu/courses/anth042/questions3.html
Discussion questions for "The Hottentot Venus" and "Carrie Buck's Daughter"
What were the Europeans interested in?
1.With "Science" and "Race" aquiring new meanings and political significance,
why would the colonizers attempt to inter-relate the
two?
2.Even though they aren't mental differences, do the physiological differences
in the Hottentot Venus and a normal person validate
the statement made by Jefferson that the difference is fixed in nature?
3.There was great interest in the Hottentot Venus throughout Europe.
There seem to be many sources of this interest, all of which
give way to an underlying source. Were all Europeans interested in
her simply because of her physical traits? Did they use other
reasons such as race, culture and her other abnormalities as a cover
up? Or did these other factors just make their curiosity even
greater. The drawing in the course pack seems to show that the physical
traits were what attracted the audiences, where the woman
is pretending to tie her shoe, but is really trying to look at Saartjie.
What were the Europeans really interested in?
4.An undeniable fact of being human is having some degree of fascination
with those who differ from one's own "standard"
(physically, culturally,etc.) and that with which one is familiar.
This fascination seems to have been taken to the extreme in the case
of the Hottentot Venus. Under what conditions or by what process does
understandable curiosity transform into something that
socially/politically/economically/personally serves the interests of
an individual(s) and simultaneously dehumanizes/harms the
individual(s) being observed as peculiar?
5.Out of the readings, I gathered not only the obvious, that alienation
from "the elite" was created in any form possible, but I also
sensed that this may have stemmed from the lingering belief that "power
is limited." Is it correct for me to assume that, in any way
possible, people were purposely disgarded and condemmed for reasons
stemming from the initial concept of power, a need for
acquiring that power by those who weren't hereditarily endowed, and
that this power was provided only at limited quantities?
6.Why would Cuvier say both negative and positive things about Saartijie?
At one point he compares her to a primate, and at another
he speaks of "her charming hand." How was it possible for the spectators
to see her as both a sexual object and a member of the
society said to be the most primitave and subordinate? What does this
say about this group of whites?
Gender and Race
1.First, why did the Hottentot Venus not come forth in the Dutch courts
and escape from her horrfifying situation? Was she scared,
swayed by the promises of riches, or was there some other reason?Also,
what is the significance that both of these articles depict
women who are blantantly discriminated against by men? Could this sexism,
on top of the racism we always discuss in class, be an
example of a "global force" that still occurs today?
2.Why is the genitalia of the Hottentot Venus such an interesting subject
for the anthropologists? What is the fascination in this area
and why has it evolved so greatly over time?
3.Why were the women's genitalia collected instead of their brains as
was done with men? are we still today practicing the idea that
some humans genes are better than others by tests such as i.q. and
s.a.t. which have proven that minority groups do not score as
high?
4.The two instances of misunderstood women- the Hottentott Venus and
Carrie Buck's Daughter- are perfect examples of yet
another instance of racism. Would such a situation ever have occured
if they were male?
European men were enticed by the magnetic appeal of the Hottentot Venus'
pronounced feminine features but repelled by her African
nature. However, it was her African nature and biology that created
such an exotic and sensual woman. Which side of Saartjie was
morepersuasive and important, her sexuality as a woman or her race
as an African? Moreover, did the fact that Saartije (and many
other black women,especially slaves) were African, and therefore of
an inferior race, make the many cases of sexual assualt against
these women acceptable to white men? Were their gender rights and status
dependent on their racial status?
5.In both of these articles the subjects of ridicule and injustice were
women. So, my question is: were men with "abnormalities" and
"imbecile" tendencies treated in the same manner as women?
6.How did the white men justify their reactions to the Hottentot Venus by viewing her as both a women of -- sexuality and animality?
7.In the article "Hottentot Venus", it doesn't seem like males of other
races were exploited as much as the women, yet white males
were most concerned with the issue of inequality. Why were mostly women
exploited in the name of ideology and the attempt to
purify a race?
"Race" and Class
1.How can the Europeans be so openly interested in the sexual parts
of a Hottentot if they pride themselves on their sexual
conservativeness? Also, why so interested in a "lower" form of life
such as a Hottentot? Why not be as openly interested in female
parts of their own class?
2.I wonder if the whole sterilization idea was based more on class and
societies stereotypes, than actual "impairments." It seems
like Carrie Buck was targetted because she was viewed as "immoral"
and she was poor and unwed, not because of any evidence of
true deficiencies.
3.In Carrie Buck's Daughter, they tell us the testimony used to show
us that the child had something wrong with her. It has no
evidence at all but was still used. When did the term innocent till
proven guilty come along and did the Buck's have a lawyer at all? It
seems that it would have been totally simple to put one of the Bucks
on the stand to show that she was completely capable.
4.Carrie Buck lived in poverty with her foster parents. She gave birth
to an illigitimate child, and she was also an illigitimate child
herself. She was therefor classified as a feeble-minded woman, who
was also born to a feeble-minded woman, by judge Oliver
Wendell Holmes. Can one say that this is an example of powerful people
using their power to intimidate the powerless? Yes/ No?
Explain why? How do you think the outcome would be under similar circumstances
if an influential family was involved? Relate this
to your answer above.
Knowledge and Class/Race/Power
1.After reading about the ill-fated lives of Saartjie Baartman and Carrie
Buck, I was struck by how science was regarded as a type of
immutable truth, even when very little was know about subjects like
evolution and genetic inheritance. The "Hottentot Venus" was
likened to primate version of a human, and Carrie Buck was labeled
an illegitimate "imbecile." Regardless, both were deemed
"undesirable" in the eyes of a Western society using "scientific knowledge."
However, scientists were willing to treat one subject as
a specimen for study while the other was viewed more as something to
exterminate. What accounts for the different scientific
treatment of the two women? What does this suggest about scientific
justifications for power? How did each case serve to enhance
someone's power in a different way?
2.I am disgusted that such degrading acts could be performed and allowed because they were deemed acceptable by science.
3.Saartjie Baartman lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
The ideas of "an evolutionarilty superior race," while they had no
scientific proof as we see it today, were supported by many scientific
beliefs then. Therefore, the people who exploited Saartjie had
what they felt was "scientific justification" to do so. Carrie Buck,
on the other hand, lived in the 20th century, when science had
taken on a more quanitative and evidence-based meaning. Since there
was obviously no scientific justification for the belief that
"pauperism" and intellectual handicaps were "fixed in nature," why
did the eugenics movement exist? Who was to benefit from its
ideas and what motives did they have for continuing to unjustly subordinate
another race?
4.The 1812 print shows the ridiculous acts of the English. Was this
not widely seen? How could it not visibly show the English of
their simple mindedness?
5.Just how popular was Saartjie in Europe? And among whom was she popular?
Were the "educated" the only ones who partook of
this spectacle? Or did the lower classes also participate? What can
the affair tell us about the class structures of European nations?
"More Evolved"...
1.Toward the end of his article, Gould suggests that Saartjie may actually
have been more advanced in her evolution than her white
counterparts. He adds that the Europeans would have made better candidates
for the cage. But can one equate evolutionary
development with cultural development? Instead of relying on "science"
to tell us who is more evoloved, shouldn't we look to cultural
phenomena like language and literature, technology, and political organization?
2.In "Carrie Buck's Daughter," I noticed that the rise of the American
eugenics movement coincided with the rise of the American
universal education movement. Is there a causal link between these
two movements? (We could also ask if there's a link between
the "educated" "science" of the French Enlightenment and the pseudo-scientific
racism of Cuvier.) Should we infer that an
"educated" citizenry is really an arrogant citizenry? (Congrats to
whomever wrote this question; it's excellent!!!!)
Good Question!!!!
1.As Stephen Jay Gould says the Hottentot Venus was given a choice in
the matter of whether or not to travel to Europe and be put
on display. What could have been her original motivation for agreeing
to such an exploitative journey? Is there any evidence to show
that she thought that she would be given some kind of benefits for
the trip and subsequent display of her body? Was her decision
influenced in part to gain some type of success comparable to that
enjoyed by the South American Indians under the rule of
Spaniards as seen in "The Tragedy of Success"?
And Today...?
1.It seems that in movies and television, African natives are still
portrayed as savage. Does the stereotype that the Hottentots were
almost animals still exist, yet to a lesser extent?
2.The way the people mistreated and displayed the Hottentott Venus is
disturbing to say the least. But still we have similar
fascinations with freak shows at Carnivals nowadays (they are paid
for their contribution but they are still seen as unequals and
almost nonhuman). Is it just human nature to continue with this fascination?,
will appearance always be a major part of our
judgement of people? Could that actually ever possibly change?
3.Stephen J. Gould illustrates the precarious usage of "science" as
a justification--or guise--for perpetuating racist attitudes. Does
this practice exist in any modern-day publications or institutions
(e.g., The Bell Curve)?
4.These two articles left me with a dark feeling not so much because
of the past follies they describe, but because many modern
parallels seem to exist. What are some of these modern parallels? The
infatuation of geneticists with cloning? The pro-choice
movement? An unbounded faith in Darwin's theory of evolution?
