The second review errs in that the Comanche loved war no more than did the other Plains tribes with which they competed. And far from being simply 'nomadic,' all these tribes followed the annual migrations of the bison herds, stopping at summer camps in what are now the Dakotas and Canada, and winter camps in what are now Texas and Mexico, that almost always were in the same locations. Though tribes did skirmish frequently over territoriality, true war began only when European expansion and tribes fleeing the Europeans (such as those that became the Sioux) encroached on the Plains and interfered with or even stymied the millennially long-established routes to follow the bison.
12 comments:
Writerfella here --
Geez, what can I say? You even spelled my name right...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Correspondent Eulala Pegram sent me the following note:
The Euchees did not reach the plains area until after the 1830s. After that time, they could probably not have been part of the "Lords of the Plains" with the other tribes mentioned in the article, and, to my knowledge, they did not have the horseman skills of the others. Euchees were originally from what is now Georgia.
"Tybee Island was originally inhabited by the Euchee Native American tribe and gave the island its name: tybee is a Euchee word for salt."
Tybee Island, Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (look under history).
The Euchees were removed to Oklahoma from the SE during the time of removal (called the Trail of Tears by the Cherokee) and are not part of my own tribal government (Muscogee Nation, Okmulgee, OK) with full voting rights, etc. and still keep their own language and customs.
Writerfella here --
No one said the Euchees (Yuchis) were 'Lords of the Plains' but they did emulate the Plains lifestyle for a good long period of time. And the geography given is quite mistaken, as the Euchees were coastal dwellers through what is now Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. But I'll let your correspondent argue with James Neafus, who should know the history of his own tribe better than she.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Writerfella says "(such as those that became the Sioux)". We know by now that they were Sioux (Dakota and Lakota) for at least a few centuries before they left Minnesota to venture onto the Plains. The Plains did not make the Sioux.
Also, in case it was missed before, the very name "Sioux" came from a French version of an Ojibwe term, given to the people long before some of the Sioux went onto the plains. Just another example of how the Sioux were the Sioux before the western divisions of them moved onto the Plains.
Saying that moving onto the Plains created the Sioux would be like saying that moving to Oklahoma created the Cherokee.
Writerfella here --
Snakes on a plane, how jejune can you be? If the Plains did not 'make' the Sioux, then why don't stories about them depict said tribes as alleged forest dwellers and mountain plateau people and agrarian/riparian villagers? But, no, they were valiant warriors who fought great wars for their beloved Black Hills for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, to hear the Sioux tell it! Should they read your testimonials to the contrary, writerfella is much assured they will ask you to stay off their side.
It quite is obvious that the Plains made the Kiowas, who were Mayans theretofore, and turned Shoshonis into Comanches, and turned the Kadohadoches into Caddoes, Wichitas, and Pawnees. And when Spaniards brought the horse, it was off to the races!
But the Sioux, oh no, they sprang fully-formed from the foreheads of Joliet and Marquette, and Lewis and Clark, and most especially from the foreheads of the Conquistadores. Wow, how magnifique! Sacro iliac!
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
SNAKES ON THE PLAINS?
It is not "jejune" to point out that a tribe really existed long before someone claimed they did. However, it is hard to tell when you are being sarcastic or not. "Snakes on a plane" does fit: the word "Sioux" in origin is supposedly "snake-like enemy". Hence the title for this response (see top)
As for the name, let us go to "HISTORY OF WABASHA COUNTY"
Compiled by Dr. L. H. Bunnell" for this quote: "The Sioux, or rather the Dahkotahs ~ the term Sioux being a nickname given them by the early voyageurs for the sake of convenience ~ are the aborigines of this part of Minnesota". The Voyageur era was in fact the 17th century. There are many other references to the use of the Sioux name prior to the Plains era of the Lakota.
What we have here are two separate claims:
1) "The Sioux did not exist before they came to the Upper Plains" (clearly not true as per voluminous documentation, so why bring it up?)
2) "The Sioux claim to long-term ownership of the Black Hills is not valid since they are recent arrivals (All of my information actually points to this. However, why bring up #1 on repeated occasions in connection to this?)
I'm not sure what the part about asking why there are no Sioux stories about mountain plateaus means! I've read many of their old tales, and none of them mention that. However, they are indeed "forest dwellers" and "agrarian/riparian villagers?" in the tales. Important Sioux locations like Mille Lacs and Wapasha's Cap are not on the Plains. In fact, until recent history, the Dakota (woodland) Sioux greatly outnumbered the western Lakota of Minnesota prairie and later plain.
For an example of a REAL EXISTING Sioux leader who lived in the woodland and never stepped foot on the Plains, look into Chief Wabasha I.
It is the Dakota that I know best )history-wise). This major division of the Sioux did not have a claim on the Black Hills, and did not live on the Plains until being forced there in the 1860s.
Joliet and Marquette no more invented the Sioux than John Ford and John Wayne invented the Apache.
Writerfella here --
But what you fail to see in your own protestations is that the Sioux claim to have invented themselves! And, with your dogged and relentless support, so they have, at least to your satisfaction!
The tribe originally from what is now North Carolina, that transmuted and transmogrified into Sioux, lived in the mountains.
And guess what, there is no Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny is a myth, Luke SkyWalker is a fictional character, and Tom Cruise is gay. Spin those truths and see what you end up with.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
The most definite information has them living in Minnesota for hundreds of years prior to Columbus, and before that they are traced to central Mississippi valley (St. Louis area). The transmogrification into the Sioux, regardless is pre-Columbian.
This all happened before Thomas Jefferson, and before the area of those ever-too-famous Plains Lakota.
I'm not sure what "support" I give them other than defending them against the proposterous claim that the Sioux did not exist until after the year 1800. I'm certainly not defending any ancient claims of theirs to the Black Hills.
I'm not sure what you mean about the part "Sioux claim to have invented themselves!"
Searching Google, I don't see any info for James Neafus. What I do see is the following:
http://www.eucheemarinaresort.com
Eu·chee (you' chē)
n., pl. Euchi or Euchees
1. A Native American people formerly inhabiting northern Georgia and eastern Tennessee, politically included in the Creek confederacy since the 19th century.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wrightsborough/cox-1.htm
The Cherokees maintained relations with the English in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia in an uneasy alliance to block intrusions of northern tribes which were friendly with the French. Smaller tribes like Georgia's Euchees and Yamasees were pressed by the shifting populations of the large tribes and the advancing line of English white settlement coming from the east.
http://appalachiansummit.tripod.com/chapt4.htm
In 1711 Long and Eleazer Wiggen were operating a trading post at Chestowe, a Yuchi town located in present northeastern Georgia below the Cherokee villages.
Writerfella here --
Wow, what a long string just because writerfella left out three words, '...on the plains.' I admit that when I write, I write fast and that ideas may not be as complete as I intend them to be. But I see that the smallest of oversights somehow rouses the 'female' side of the readers of my posts and then they begin to chivvy me as though they were my wife. Thus, I now will admit to being gay, and therefore do not tolerate any such 'female' attacks. I was not so much wrong as I was remiss and thus brought out the the womanly aspect of those who read my posts. If such continue, it is not my fault but rather is the feminine side of those who dislike both my logic and my standpoints. Thus, I safely can ignore those responses simply because those are products of an unrealized effeminate consciousness.
Alll Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
At last, a conclusion to this discussion that leaves us checking to see who is wearing a skirt.
(However, your leaving off the "of the Plains" words seems less of an oversight and more of something intentional when you look at other repetitions of the idea that the Sioux did not exist until they invaded the Plains: especially the claim that the Sioux did not exist until Thomas Jefferson kicked them out of Virginia)
- not a Sue.
Post a Comment