But if you want Chumash history from the Chumash, okay. Here's a link to the history page of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. It doesn't say the Chumash were either peaceful or warlike, but it strongly emphasizes their peaceful behavior. There isn't one word about fighting the Spanish.
Does that surprise you? It doesn't surprise me. I know lots of California Indians and I don't think many of them consider themselves weapon-wielding warriors. They consider themselves stewards of their lands and traditions, not fighters or killers.
The only weird thing here is your amazement that I'd dare to criticize a Native. Where were you the last umpteen times I did something similar?
"In 1824, the Chumash Indians revolted and temporarily controlled three missions (Santa Barbara, Santa Ines, and La Purisima)."
Here's some information on the 1801 "uprising" and the 1824 revolt. And...so? As usual, the exceptions prove the rule. A couple of rebellions in a long history is evidence of a generally peaceful nature.
Miranda was generalizing?
Sure, she probably was "talking about the under-estimation/dismissal of California peoples in general." My point was that she did a poor job of it by referring to the Chumash but citing four examples that weren't Chumash.
If she had wanted to discuss California tribes in general, it would've been easy to do without implying that all the tribes were the same. She made an unwarranted leap of "logic" and I called her on it.
Suppose I wanted to say something about Lakota warriors and I cited examples from the Ponca, Kaw, or Osage. Would you give me a pass on that? Especially if I meant my argument to be "emotional and accurate" rather than "fine-tuned and logical"?
No, you probably wouldn't. Nor should you, in my opinion. These tribes are about as geographically and culturally close as Miranda's examples are to the Chumash. I.e., not that close.
In other words, the Dakotas are to Nebraska or Kansas as Northern California is to Southern California. If you think we should ignore the lumping together of unrelated tribes several hundred miles apart...well, I don't.
I said her examples were poorly chosen to make her point. Try to get that straight, please, because these are markedly different claims.
By the way, let's recall that I work for a California (Pechanga) Indian. I've visited a dozen or more California Indian reservations...broken bread with their people...read their materials (websites, magazines, cultural displays)...written articles about them...etc. That specifically includes the Santa Ynez Chumash. If you think my comments are based on five minutes of ivory-tower research, you're sadly mistaken.
California's tribes get stereotyped
Really...are you seriously asserting that I think California's Indians should've accepted their fate? That docility and servility were a better approach than fighting back? You must've misread or misunderstood every posting on this blog if you came to that completely erroneous conclusion.
Sheesh. Where were you when I posted my thoughts on the Jamestown massacre of 1622? Where's your defense of my defense of Indian uprisings that involve killing people? Read these postings and then tell me I prefer docile Indians.
In short, you haven't been paying attention if you think I've ever said Native resistance movements didn't and don't "count." I've never said anything of the sort.
Miranda has a right?
I suspect every tribe that was relatively peaceful got stereotyped as weak or passive. And...so? Other than providing accurate information, what do you want me to do about it? Pretend that every tribe consisted of mighty warriors who would rather die than sign a peace treaty?
You can do that, but I'm not going to. Some tribes had warrior cultures but sued for peace. Some didn't have warrior cultures but rebelled and fought. History is more complex than you're making it out to be.
California's tribes may be known for being docile and servile, but Indians in general are known for being savage and warlike. I'm not about to contribute to this stereotype if I can help it. As I've said many times, we need fewer inaccurate stereotypes and more accurate information.
If you think Indians should be beyond criticism because they've had a tough time...well, I guess I'll stop criticizing Russell Means, Tim Giago and Charles Trimble, Russell Bates, Native artists whose work is marginal, Natives who support Indian mascots, the Native staff of Redskin magazine, et al.
Or maybe I'll change my mind and keep criticizing them when they deserve it. Yes, I think that's the approach I'll take.
The only thing someone didn't get here is your assertion that Miranda's emotional needs trump the need for historical accuracy. I say the opposite: that the need for historical accuracy trumps Miranda's emotional needs. Miranda can say whatever she wants, of course, but in my blog, I say what goes.
P.S. For a related debate, see Rob the Presumptuous White Man?
Below: Not the peaceful Chumash.