In Colonial Times, Native Americans Looked at Things in Two Different Ways

It might be a hard concept for some of us modern people to grasp (or at least hard for some to accept), nevertheless, it explains everything in terms of the belief systems of Natives in early America.

Bear with me for a few moments here and just forget all the things that you already know about Indians. Now we are going to place all the Indians from early America in one of two categories. If you understand those categories well enough, you should be able to explain why some Indians became Christians and others pursued forms of revitalization of traditional systems of belief and action.

The two groups are nativists and accommodationists.

Katy Chiles describes the Nativists on page 13 of her book, Transformable Race..

[They believed] that Natives, whites, and Africans were created separately. They also became aware that they should practice entirely discrete religions: Christianity was for Europeans exclusively, since God did not give the Bible to the Indian or to the black man.

The Nativists, of course, are the type that us moderns readily understand, because we are aware of the importance of one's own culture. It is healthy to observe your own culture and be proud of it, right, I mean, isn't that just obvious?

It is obvious to most of us now, but there is another group of Native Americans in early America. Just because they are known as accommodationists does not mean that they didn't have integrity. They just looked at things in a different way. As Samson Occom, one of the leaders of the Brothertown Indians once put it (quoted by Chiles on page 14):

[There is] but one, Great ^good^ Supream and Indepentent Spirit above, he is the only Living and True God [who created] this World.

Chiles also brings Captain Hendrick Aupaumut of the Stockbridge Mohicans into her discussion, noting that

Both Occom and Aupaumut endorsed the biblical creation story, the idea that all races descended...from this single creation, and that, therefore, Indians should be seen as equals and "brothers" with the white man.

So the case is made that becoming a Christian did not mean that one stopped being an Indian. If one God created all people, then all races could practice the same religion.
 

 

Was the pre-contact Religion of Algonquian-speaking Indians Similar to Christianity?

When I first started blogging in the fall of 2008 I published a post called "The Mohican Ten Commandments." While there appears to be only nine of them and they weren't actually called "commandments," Captain Hendrick Aupaumut's teachings bore an unmistakable resemblance to the Calvinist Christianity of his time. And I think that the first person to make that observation was Captain Hendrick himself. Captain Hendrick also said that the Mohicans were once more "civilized" and they had some kind of a holy book like the Christian Bible, but when hard times came they lost their ability to read it and buried it with a chief. (The source for that is somewhere in Electa Jones' Stockbridge Past and Present.)

Captain Hendrick's way of looking at things is that Christian missions were giving Indians a chance to get their old, "civilized" ways back - after they had been corrupted by the fur trade.

I buy into that viewpoint myself. I mean I agree with the sequence: 1) Indians were doing alright prior to white contact, 2) the fur trade sent eastern seaboard Indians into a horrible downward spiral in which they lost much of their population and much of their culture, and 3) many of the Indians who survived the disasters of the fur trade became receptive to Christian missions which offered them "something."

I don't claim that sequence applies to all Native Americans, but it is an accepted reality among those who study the eastern seaboard Indians.

Of course, Captain Hendrick took it farther. In a scholarly article that is not available on the free web, Rachel Wheeler went into a lot of detail about Captain Hendrick's work to revitalize his people through participation in Christian missions and "civilization" programs. (The title of that article, if you want to try to access it, is "Hendrick Auapumut: Christian Mahican Prophet.")

However, after reading Wheeler's article a few times, I don't think she buys into the idea that the religions of Algonquian-speaking peoples were a lot like Christianity. Instead, I think Wheeler's understanding of Captain Hendrick is that he masterfully employed rhetoric to motivate his people. He knew there would be more energy in accepting Christianity and "civilization" if he could present it in a "back to traditional ways" package. And that is what he did.

 

Of course it goes without saying that Indians who took on Christianity  and "civilization" didn't give up all of their "Indian-ness." Of course their understanding of their new religion was influenced by whatever was left of their Native culture. In that sense, there likely were some similarities.

To my way of thinking, Captain Hendrick Aupaumut was not a sellout. Far from it. Instead, he promoted Christian missions and the "arts of civilized life" because he thought they were the best thing for his people. Probably the most effective way to do that was to make it seem like Christianity was rather similar to traditional Mohican religion.


[mc4wp_form]

Stockbridge Chiefs and Matrilineality

April 14, 2014.
Bloggers' note: Yesterday Robert Shubinsky made a comment in response to this post (originally blogged last month) and his comment is so important that I'm going to quote it here and ask you to read it before you read my original blogpost:

I was reading the book ‘Samson Occom and the Christian Indians’ and it states that in 1777 Joseph Quanaukaunt or Quinney became sachem.
His three councilors were Peter Pauquaunaupeet son of Peter the 1st deacon of same name, Hendrick Aupaumut and lastly John Konkapot also called John Stockbridge. Joseph was the son of King Ben’s granddaughter and a brother in law to Hendrick Aupaumut who was married to Lydia Quinney.

And here also is my response:

Thanks for your comment Bob.

[The] more complicated “line of chiefs,” [that you get when you add Joseph Quanaukaunt] is evidence that matrilineality continued to a large extent after the Stockbridge mission was founded.

Admittedly, I had an abbreviated list of chiefs. I’d been aware of that passage that you mention, but forgot where it was. History has largely forgotten Joseph Quanaukaunt and I’m sorry that I had also forgotten his place in the order.

At the same time, I appreciate your comment because it bolsters one of the [important] points that I made in the post: the point that the Christian church should not be blamed for coercing matrilineality out of the Stockbridge Mohicans.

I decided not to scrap this post entirely. It may still be considered a worthwhile read, if you keep in mind that the chiefs who - in my own 21st century opinion - were important in history were the ones that I mentioned in the post. Their Christian names (easier for me to spell and type) were Ben, Solomon, and Hendrick. The one that I left out, Joseph Quanaukaunt, in spite of whatever remarkable and good qualities he may have had as a leader or otherwise, might have been wiped off the historical record save for the mention he gets as once being the head chief.

Another thing that has come to mind is that I once attended the Algonquain Peoples' Conference in Albany, New York where I listened to various experts talk about a number of things. One said that Konkapot was the head chief at Stockbridge, MA and another said that Umpachenee was the head chief at Stockbridge, MA. I bring that up here to make the point that not all sources are in agreement about everything. Bob Shubinsky was kind enough to give me/us the source he had used. I think I was using Stockbridge Past and Present by Electa Jones, plus my own memory which, of course, is fallible. Anyway, Thanks again for your input Bob!

 

What follows is my original and unedited blogpost:


Pictured above: Schematic diagram of Cherokee kinship system and British royal succession, both of which are matrilineal --> Source: https://hiddencause.wordpress.com/2011/02/

 

What began - for me -  as a list of who was the head chief of the Stockbridge Mohicans, became a discussion of how one chief succeeded another.

 

"King Ben" Kokhkewaunaunt served for at least thirty years, resigning in 1771. He passed the title of big chief on to his son, Solomon Uhhaunauwaunmut. As I understand it, prior to white contact, clan mothers would pick the new chief from the nephews of the old chief - in other words, the clan mothers would pick one of their sons.

The previous sentence is my understanding of matrilineal succession, maybe my explanation or definition of it isn't exactly correct, if it isn't, please let me know. If anybody can add anything to that it would be appreciated. Nevertheless, prior to the Christian era, the Mohicans did not keep written records. So how do we know for sure exactly how things were done? I think the closest we can come is to call it "matrilineal succession" which may have some variations. But seriously, if you know more than that please comment.

But by the time written records were kept, Stockbridge Mohican chiefs were chosen via patrilineal succession, or something close to it.

Leadership went from "King Ben" to his son Solomon Uhhaunauwaunmut and then on to his son, Hendrick Aupaumut and again on to Captain Hendrick's son, Solomon U. Hendricks, whose untimely death - and other factors - appear to have disrupted the string.

I have the impression that Shirley Dunn, author of The Mohican World, and some of the tribe's female elders think that patrilineal succession was imposed or "forced upon" the Stockbridge Mohicans. But, in my view, it was something that the men in the tribe welcomed - maybe they borrowed it from the whites, but I think they borrowed it willingly. Why else would "King Ben" name his son "Solomon"?

I know. That raises other questions. 1) Did Indians call him "King Ben" or just whites? I imagine that Indians only called him by his Indian name, but I don't think that matters at all in this particular discussion. 2) Did "King Ben" have enough knowledge of the Bible to be making a point by naming his son "Solomon'? A good question, arguably a relevant one  to this discussion, but even if he had to be told who "King Solomon" was in the Bible, the fact that he and his wife still named their son "Solomon," at least suggests that they wanted the symbolism that went with the name of a great monarch who was, in turn, the son of another great monarch. 3) Who gave the Indians their Christian names? Answer: Christian parents could pick a Christian name for their Christian infants. Adults who were baptized could pick a Christian name. Those who weren't baptized used only their Indian names unless (or until) they felt they needed an English name.

Anyway, maybe patrilineal succession was different from how things were before, but Indians were already making lots of changes. Not all of those changes were made against their will. I don't think there is anything immoral or "un-Indian" about a chief who wants his son to take his place - unless you want to make the point that women should have as much a chance of taking political leadership as men. Okay, let's take a look at that.

I've read about how the Iroquois had some kind of balance of power between the sexes that continued to some extent into historical times. And maybe the Algonquian-speaking Native nations also had some kind of system that balanced power between genders. (Maybe matrilineality itself was that system.)  However, by the time the Mohicans welcomed a mission into their midst, whatever balance of power between genders there might have once been was already gone. So if there ever was an Algonquian balance of power it was wiped out by the fur trade, not by missionaries.

 

Please use the link below to comment here - I've gotten rid of the old plug-in that made commenting difficult for many of you.

 

Sources include Electa Jones' Stockbridge Past and Present, as well as other sources, including what we might call common knowledge.
[mc4wp_form]

Joseph Smith and the Legend of the Golden Bible

The Town Hall of Palmyra, New York, Joseph Smith's hometown.

One of the great nuggets of history recorded by Electa Jones (published in 1854) was a statement made by Captain Hendrick Aupaumut (1757-1830) that the Mohican Indians - at one time - had their own Holy Book or Indian Bible. But, according to Captain Hendrick, the people became less civilized and lost their ability to read it. And so this Holy Book was "buried with a chief."

A similar legend had been recorded in 1823 by Ethan Smith, the pastor of a church in Poultney, Vermont. Smith reported a legend that came from an Indian chief who claimed that the Indians

had... a book which they had for a long time preserved. But having lost the knowledge of reading it, they concluded it would be of no further use to them; and they buried it with an Indian chief" (quoted by Lynn Glaser, Indians or Jews, 69).

Lynn Glaser's research shows that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, knew of that particular legend.


This painting was by an unknown painter, circa 1842. The original is owned by the Community of Christ archives. It is on display at the Community of Christ headquarters in Independence Missouri. The painting was originally in the possession of Joseph Smith III (died 1914).

In his youth, Joseph Smith had a fascination with digging for artifacts. He, like other whites in western New York State, was something of an amateur antiquarian. Smith and many others were keenly interested in the many mounds in the area. Unfortunately, there wasn't any awareness back then of how disrespectful it was to mutilate or violate burial grounds - which is, of course, what the mounds were.

Anyway, the Mormon religion is based on their Holy Book, the Book of Mormon. Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

Well, if you believe Joseph Smith, he found golden plates with "Reformed Egyptian" characters on them and he was given the power to "translate" those characters. If you aren't a Mormon, it appears to be an incredible story. According to No Man Knows My History, Fawn Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith, many versions of the story of how Smith found his golden plates circulated in Palmyra, New York, his hometown. (By the way, Palmyra was about ninety miles west of New Stockbridge, home of the Mohicans from the 1780's to the 1820's.)

At least one of the accounts has Smith bringing something home and telling his family (but not showing them) that it was the golden plates. The whole family was familiar with the Indian legend of the "golden Bible" and, to some extent, this was their basis for believing Joseph's claim (Brody, page 37).

So the Indian legend that was recorded by a pastor in Vermont entered young Joseph Smith's fertile imagination and - from a non-Mormon viewpoint - he borrowed from the legend. In doing so, he started a new religion.

Is it possible that the legend of the "golden Bible" comes from the same oral thread as the Bible that Captain Hendrick Aupaumut said was "buried with a chief"? What do you think?

 

[mc4wp_form]

 

Christianity: The Ingredient that Changed the Mohicans into the Stockbridge Mohicans

In my last post I defined ethnogenesis as the creation of an ethnic group.

I expected to get some objection from my Indian audience for stating that I believe the Mohican Indians underwent an ethnogenesis as their Massachusetts mission town took shape. Although you see no comments posted here, I did get some argument on Facebook, especially from Shawn Stevens. And let me tell you that Shawn is one of a small number of people whose support is part of what makes my research and writing worthwhile. Shawn's response to my last post was long (for facebook) and it included some exclamation marks.

Since I make it a point to keep my blogposts relatively brief, I didn't have enough space to make my argument completely clear in my previous post so I will fill it out here. The essence of my argument is that the Stockbridge Mohicans are different from the pre-Christian-era Mohicans because of religion. The American Heritage Dictionary defines ethnic as "of or relating to a specific group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage." So one's ethnic group can be defined by race or "blood quantum," but it can also be defined by religion and culture.

In my previous post I stated that John Sergeant baptized 182 Indians "at a time when baptism was a rather exclusive rite among Calvinists." I noted that many of the converts were not "Mohicans" and, for that reason, it is understandable that some people (Shawn Stevens included) thought that I was making a "blood quantum" argument. Instead, I was arguing that being a Stockbridge Mohican was different from being any other kind of Mohican because they [the Stockbridges] had taken on a different religion and culture.

Those "other kinds" of Mohicans didn't survive as distinct ethnic groups. But the Stockbridge Mohicans are with us today. That is a paraphrase of something that Captain Hendrick Aupaumut said in a speech to the White River Delawares in 1803. The Stockbridge chief was encouraging the Delawares to accept a Christian mission and the things that went with it, primarily learning to farm and learning to read.

Please don't misunderstand me. I myself have documented the hard times of the Stockbridge Mohicans. And I would guess that they are among only a small minority of tribes who (for the most part) had good relations with white church bodies and white ministers.

So again I make the argument that there was an ethnogenesis at the Massachusetts mission. The new ethnic group was different to some extent because some (or many) came from non-Mohican tribes, but mostly, the Stockbridge Mohicans were different from the pre-Christian Mohicans because they adopted a new religion. And don't forget: back then religion wasn't separated from almost everything else - it was your culture.


[mc4wp_form]