"Mysterious Disappearance" Of The Iroquois People.

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
"Mysterious Disappearance" Of The Iroquois People.

author: indian behind a tree
Colonial Canada announces disappearance of Iroquois People. On November 7, 2006, the Iroquois learned that there was a new exhibit on display at the Calliere Museum in Montreal, Quebec, and
decided to go and look it over. The exhibit was about the "Mysterious Disappearance of the St. Lawrence Valley Iroquois."
In a mystery befitting the talents of the Scooby Doo Mystery Wagon, it was curious as to how the colonials got the idea that the Iroquois
had disappeared.
The exhibit was a reminder of their terrorist death threats, like the residential schools where the children were told that their moms, dads,
sisters, brothers, aunties, uncles, grandmothers, and grandfathers were going to die out.

The banner hung over the entrance indicated sponsorship by provincial, national, and international corporations. When the People arrived,
the museum treated them as univited guests instead of welcoming them as the "long lost Iroquois."
The ticket wicket attendant told the People that they had to pay $12.00 each to attend their wake. The People suggested that since they had
disappeared and were now spirits, they should get in for free.
The attendant suddenly started to speak only French, so the People began to speak Mohawk to the attendant, who got real red in the face
and started punching on the cash register. The People finally decided to pay this extortionist, and walked into the museum.
What the People saw on the second floor was a gross misrepresentation of the Iroquois People, just another example of the colonialist's
revised history.

Among the corporate supporters and financiers of this revisionist history exhibit were/are the National Archives of Canada, the Birmingham
Public Library, the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Quebec Conservation Department, the National Archives of France, the National
Capital Commission of Quebec, the Gilcrease Museum of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Huntingdon Library of San Marino, California, the Jefferson
County Historical Society of Watertown, New York, the McCord Museum of Montreal, the McGill University of Montreal, the Quebec Ministry
of Culture and Communications, the Botanical Gardens of Montreal, the Quebec Museum of Civilization, the National Science Foundation of
Arlington, Virginia, the New York State Museum in Albany, the Point-de-Buisson Archaeological Park, the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg,
Russia, the British Museum, the University of Montreal, the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C., and NASA.

The People decided to hold a council to talk about why NASA was a sponsor. It was decided that NASA thought that the People came from
outer space with Plan 9, or perhaps it was because it was where NASA wished to send them.

The museum said that they had spoken on the phone to a young man in Kahnawake about the exhibit. The phone call must have been covered
by their budget because it was not long distance. The colonials did not bother to travel to Kahnawake, Kanehesatake, or Akwesasne, to ask
the People because they had suddenly and mysteriously disappeared.
The museum tour guide told the People that they were "different Iroquois" and that the colonial scientists have archaeological evidence that
proves their claims.
Well, there it is, the colonial mindset. Even though the People had vanished, their traditions are carried on by their "descendants."

The Iroquois were there in 1535 when Cartier visited Hochelaga, or what the colonials call Mount Royal. During his sojourn, Cartier set up a
European town square with avenues, streets, street signs, and longhouses. Cartier also built a residence for a shaman who was to live apart
from the "mere mortals."

When Cartier arrived on his second visit, he "discovered" that the Iroquois had moved out of the area and that the land was empty and ripe
for the thieving. The colonials had no understanding that the Iroquois had relations around the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence Valley, New York
State, and other places. The People loved to travel and visit with their relatives.
The Iroquois would move to other other areas on a regular basis, following the cycles of seasons, and to allow the ground and animals to
recover, and when they returned the balance had been restored.

The Iroquois did not use potassium nitrate or other chemicals to "re-nourish" the ground. The colonials wiped out Tatanka and other four-leggeds
to institute their agriculture which is destroying the land, water, and air. The "civilized" European christians marched westward to fulfill their
"manifest destiny" -- ruthlessly murdering Indigenous peoples in their advance and covering the ground over with their buildings, asphalt,
concrete, and their industries, which has destroyed the once beautiful Turtle Island and created their wasicu shadow world nightmare.

The Iroquois were there in 1607 when Champlain and other colonists arrived. The colonists pretended that the Iroquois were not there.
They lied to themselves about lying to the Iroquois, like saying the People were wiped out by a mini ice age around 1450, or that inter-tribal
warfare had killed them off, or that the Iroquois had perished by the ravages of diseases.
The colonists theorized this because the Iroquois built "defense palisades" around their villages. They had no understanding that the People
grew herbs around their longhouses, and the fences were built to keep out rodents, rabbits, and deer who might want to browse on them.
The Iroquois had lived in peace for three thousand years before the colonists brought their incessant warfare to Turtle Island.

In their brochures and texts, the colonials used terms like "appeared", "might have", "may be", "probably", and "it would appear" to validate
their claims that the land was theirs for the thieving because no Iroquois were living there. This is no surprise because the colonists have no
respect for the land. Perhaps the Iroquois came out from under the rocks when the wasicu were not looking.

One of the museum's exhibits, called "To Pop or Not To Pop" was about pop corn, corn soup, and the cooking skills of the Iroquois.
There was no mention of the "Three Sisters", Corn, Beans, and Squash, which helped the Iroquois live a healthy life. The Iroquois living around
the Bay of Gaspe and elsewhere knew that they were given these gifts at the beginning of the original dream.

The colonists claimed that growing corn, beans, and squash had convinced the Iroquois to give up their hunting-gathering lifestyles and to
adopt colonial agricultural practices.
Many of the items the museum had on display were small pieces of pots, pipes, and other things, which were kept under glass with texts
written in French and English. Nothing written in the Mohawk language. Since the Iroquois had disappeared, the colonials theorized that the
Mohawk language was not relevant.

Among the misleading information perpetrated by the colonists was that the Clan Mothers selected the chiefs and led the families.
Unlike the colonials, who are ruled by the centralized authority (democracy) of the government, the Iroquois People tell the chiefs and clan
mothers what to say and do. The People have the power, and this is something the colonialists are unable to comprehend.

The colonials assume that the Iroquois believe in their religion and god when they refer to the "Creator." The understanding of the Iroquois
(and other Indigenous Peoples) is based on their knowledge of the natural world. Gariwiio is the perfect reality which is nature. The kasatstenera
kowa sa oiera is the great natural power which they can see and know exists. They have many symbols for the stories that have been passed
down to remind them of their history.

The colonials reduce our world to the narrowness of making tobacco offerings, sacrificing dogs, and eating dogs. In spite of what the colonial
priests claim, we did not use shamans to contact "evil, demonic forces." Our relationships were made out of respect for the natural world, and
we developed our awareness individually.

Shamans did not suck out illnesses or demons from people. There was no evil christian satan, because everything was a part of the natural
equilibrium. The Indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island, Australia, Hawaii, Africa, Asia, and the pre-christian tribes of Europe had/have no
concept of hell or satan. This is a fable created by the priests of the ruling elite of the church-state to keep the weeping masses on their bloody
knees in "repentant terror" while they walked away with all of the marbles.

The colonials claim that shamans would stare into the fire, go into a trance, start chanting and dancing, or fasting before sitting in a sweat lodge.
The Iroquois did not have shamans or sweat lodges.
What is this? Probably one of those phony, government funded Indian Affairs healing programs meant to appease and pacify us.

The colonials said that the Indians are addicted to gambling. That must be why they build all of their casinos, just for us.
Wow, that's mighty white of them.
However, the Iroquois had a peach pit game in a wooden bowl that was played by the clans to determine who would win the gifts and do all
the work until the next gathering.

The colonialists said that there was no evidence the Iroquois ever played lacrosse, and claimed the game as a Canadian invented sport.
Just like they did for hockey.......the word hockey comes from the expression "a-kee", which means "ouch", whenever players were hit with
sticks.

The colonials were horrified of Indian "fashion", saying that we ran around naked, except in the cold when small skins were used to cover the
genitals. We always ran around totally naked, but we began to cover ourselves when the colonial perverts arrived.

This museum exhibition is completely pathetic. They claim that "wampum' was precious Iroquois money, when in reality the wampum belt was
sacred and used in certain ceremonies. The colonialists blamed the People for their smoking habits, and say we smoke like chimneys just
like they do. The Iroquois did not smoke for pleasure, tobacco was used for ceremonial purposes.
It is the colonials who drive to our reserves to buy lower-priced native cigarettes, appearing paler than usual in desparate anticipation of their
next nicotine fix.
The colonials claim that tobacco did not appear in the "new world" until 800 AD and not in Montreal until 1300. They say they have proof of this
because of the pipes they found dating from that time. Perhaps it was "written" on a pipe stem they "found."

The colonials say that Iroquois women were industrous, but the men were shiftless and lazy. They call Indians "nomadic" but what do the
colonials know? The colonial men hung around with the naked Indian women while the men were out hunting or trading.

The colonials have a new archaeological dig at Cap Rouge -- the remains of the first French settlement, built in 1541 at the orders of the King
of France. In 2008, the colonials can visit the museum to see the reproduction artifacts that will be on display to celebrate over 400 years of
colonization.

For more info and news:
http://www.mohawknationnews.com
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
The bit about 3,000 years of peace made me think of the double revisionist history. North American Natives had wars the same as any other people on this green earth. I might buy a few centuries of peace, but North American Civilizations had wars between themselves, and more than a few had beef with Five Nations..
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
The bit about 3,000 years of peace made me think of the double revisionist history. North American Natives had wars the same as any other people on this green earth. I might buy a few centuries of peace, but North American Civilizations had wars between themselves, and more than a few had beef with Five Nations..
We most certainly did not have wars.

Small battles over territories perhaps, but not wars as the Europeans would bring with them. I would charge that we never had the anhilation of anyone in our hearts as we drove other Nations off our land, our encroached on theirs. It was more a game of Counting Coup, then war.

The 5 then 6 Nations, the longest surviving Democracy on the planet, lived in peace until the division and encroachment of the white settlers. Then and only then was there division among us. But our Great Law and Peace survived, it was only disregarded later in history by the French Mohawk, over their land claims and the skills they learned from the French on how to get what they want.

Between the 6 Nations, and the rest of the Nations of North America, there was certainly an anomousity. We were fierce, unmoved and by size and Confederacy pretty much left unchallenged.

Hence, the Algonquin called them the Iroqu (Irinakhoiw) "rattlesnakes." After the French added the Gallic suffix "-ois" to this insult, the name became Iroquois.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Well, I wouldn't really call the 6 nations a democracy, a republic on par with rome definately. But any government where some are more equal than others is not a true democracy. The "6 nations" only included 5 nations with a voice.

The Wendat (though they were culturally and from ancestry Iroquis) were none too friendly. I also believe the Ojibwe had a thing or two to say.

I also think you over-estimate the way europeans fought wars, flashier weapons (recently) but in the end not much different than the 6 nations, at least until the industrial revolution. If you get down to it, at the time of first colonization, the Iroquis had a larger army than the French King. Even in the American War of Independance the Iroquis military outmatched colonials (in terms of numbers if not weaponry).

To claim the Iroquis were not engaged in wars because they were massively more powerful than their neighbours is like claiming Rome was never involved in wars until the Huns arrived because no one else could stand before them, in that effect Roman conquest was simply a game to them, fighting over territory.

The Iroquis/Rome analogy is actually quite fitting for the nature of the Empire.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Well, I wouldn't really call the 6 nations a democracy, a republic on par with rome definately. But any government where some are more equal than others is not a true democracy. The "6 nations" only included 5 nations with a voice.

The Wendat (though they were culturally and from ancestry Iroquis) were none too friendly. I also believe the Ojibwe had a thing or two to say.

I also think you over-estimate the way europeans fought wars, flashier weapons (recently) but in the end not much different than the 6 nations, at least until the industrial revolution. If you get down to it, at the time of first colonization, the Iroquis had a larger army than the French King. Even in the American War of Independance the Iroquis military outmatched colonials (in terms of numbers if not weaponry).

To claim the Iroquis were not engaged in wars because they were massively more powerful than their neighbours is like claiming Rome was never involved in wars until the Huns arrived because no one else could stand before them, in that effect Roman conquest was simply a game to them, fighting over territory.

The Iroquis/Rome analogy is actually quite fitting for the nature of the Empire.
You would be incorrect about the Haudenosaunee and the 5 Nations. The were an equal Confederacy. Not to mention the oldest running Democracy...
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

The 6th Nation, the Tuscarora, joined the Confederacy in the 1700's.

And all were equal members under a Grand Council.

As for the Wendat(Huron) and Ojibwee, they spoke simular languages, as did the Algonquin, but then again, English is simular to German. But apart from that, we competed for hunting territories, in manners that the Europeans would not understand. Counting Coup is more of what was done, as apposed to what you claim we did.

Don't rely on French hisrory texts as a basis for documantional facts of a possible history of conflict. What transpired between the Haudenosaunee and the like of the Wendat. What happend as the Black Robes spread deseases, was a matter of surviavl. We saw bad medicine and tried to kill it off. Hence the event at the Sainte Marie Mission.

To compare us to the Roman Empire, as much as I take that as a compliment, is to compare an apple to an elephant.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Im not claiming that the 5 nations (later 6) were in bloodier wars than you envision..

Just that european history is not nearly as blood as its made out to be. Battles were exagerated by a large margin. It wasn't until after colonization began that armies became involved in the forms of total war that history characterized.

Also, one has to assume that natives are people, like any others. Thus in times of solidarity tales of victory over their neighbours will become absent.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Im not claiming that the 5 nations (later 6) were in bloodier wars than you envision..

Just that european history is not nearly as blood as its made out to be. Battles were exagerated by a large margin. It wasn't until after colonization began that armies became involved in the forms of total war that history characterized.

Also, one has to assume that natives are people, like any others. Thus in times of solidarity tales of victory over their neighbours will become absent.
I don't envision anything, I only see the facts as they are. I read the European style history books of the colonizing Armies, I listened to the Elders teach us the real history, be them Haudenosaunee, Cree, Algonquin, Ojibwee, Innu, etc. I am Haudenosaunee, my wife is Anishinabe(Ojibwee), I lived on an Algonquin reservation as a child, my Grand Father traded with the Cree and Innu. I have heard all the stories, from the first person/First Nation perspective. They do not match the history books as published. I was once suspended from high school for arguing with my history teacher about the reasons for the attack on Sainte Marie Mission. Wow, guess what, as the scholors and writers of these farsical fabrications, are forced to correct their lies, I was right, because I was taught the truth.

No envisioning, only seeing of reality.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
OH, you mean wars between Europeans and Natives VS Natives and Natives. Not Native on Native fights VS European on European fights.

That is another matter entirely.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
OH, you mean wars between Europeans and Natives VS Natives and Natives. Not Native on Native fights VS European on European fights.

That is another matter entirely.

Actually, combat between Native Nations, prior to European colonization, to be precise.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Yes, but when you say they were not as bloody as European wars you meant they were not as bloody as wars between Europeans and Natives right?

My point was that Wars between two Native groups were as bloody as wars between two European groups in the same period. European on European wars were traditionally not that brutal, war was refered to as a game for a reason.

It wasn't until Europe started interacting with Other cultures that problems began, which is normal. Each region invariabley makes their own rules of war and models their armed forces accordingly. The rules of war in Europe, Asia and North America were all very different. And its not surprising that when two groups ran into each other, and grew annoyed the other side wasn't playing how they deemed fair..it quickly degenerates into total war, usually on both sides. As the rules of war mean little when you don't think the other side is following them and your family is at stake. Human nature, for all humans.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Yes, but when you say they were not as bloody as European wars you meant they were not as bloody as wars between Europeans and Natives right?

My point was that Wars between two Native groups were as bloody as wars between two European groups in the same period. European on European wars were traditionally not that brutal, war was refered to as a game for a reason.

It wasn't until Europe started interacting with Other cultures that problems began, which is normal. Each region invariabley makes their own rules of war and models their armed forces accordingly. The rules of war in Europe, Asia and North America were all very different. And its not surprising that when two groups ran into each other, and grew annoyed the other side wasn't playing how they deemed fair..it quickly degenerates into total war, usually on both sides. As the rules of war mean little when you don't think the other side is following them and your family is at stake. Human nature, for all humans.
I would have to dissagree.

Native combat, prior to European mutations, was nowhere near to the extent of its European counterpart. Both in severity and frequency. Scalping and the like was a French contribution. The extent of Native combat was a kin to a game of tag with bloody outcomes. The taking of other Natives as slaves or what have you, raiding parties and the like. All ment to show one another up, not wipe one another out. I would say the only simularities were in the amounts of honour at stake and geographic necessaties of one Nation of another.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I agree, but I don't know what you think the wars between two european powers were like?

Many combats were never even fought, a quick survey showed the likely victor and the other side usually surrendered, to be ransomed back whenever their relatives could find the money. And usually kept fairly well. This was especially true in seiges which were an art form. The besieged would most often calculate how long until breach, figure out if reinforcements would arrive by then, and if not, surrender.

Armies tended to be small (until after colonization had begun and armies began exploding in size, the french army going from 20,000 to 300,000 in just over a hundred years) and combat was very formal.

So I don't disagree with anything you are saying about Native combat, or anything you are saying about the fighting between Natives and European powers.

But conflicts between Europeans was not nearly as bloody as their conflicts with other cultures. And although there could be a myriad of reasons why (from Xenophobia to ineptitude), it is my opinion it is the reasons above, especially in the case of Asian and European armies (and I would assume that that would transfer to the reasons for the extra bloody combats with Natives as well, again just opinion).

Europeans were traditionally very civilized and formal with their wars with each other prior to the colonial era where concepts of "total war" began to evolve into military tactics.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I agree, but I don't know what you think the wars between two european powers were like?

Many combats were never even fought, a quick survey showed the likely victor and the other side usually surrendered, to be ransomed back whenever their relatives could find the money. And usually kept fairly well. This was especially true in seiges which were an art form. The besieged would most often calculate how long until breach, figure out if reinforcements would arrive by then, and if not, surrender.

Armies tended to be small (until after colonization had begun and armies began exploding in size, the french army going from 20,000 to 300,000 in just over a hundred years) and combat was very formal.

So I don't disagree with anything you are saying about Native combat, or anything you are saying about the fighting between Natives and European powers.

But conflicts between Europeans was not nearly as bloody as their conflicts with other cultures. And although there could be a myriad of reasons why (from Xenophobia to ineptitude), it is my opinion it is the reasons above, especially in the case of Asian and European armies (and I would assume that that would transfer to the reasons for the extra bloody combats with Natives as well, again just opinion).

Europeans were traditionally very civilized and formal with their wars with each other prior to the colonial era where concepts of "total war" began to evolve into military tactics.
OK, now I get ya.

I will admit, my knowledge of European history, is some what lacking. Other then to tell you the history of my surname, as it crossed the Great Water.

You make an excellent point, and your observation of the formallity and civility of European Combat, leads me to sumize, that there lies to birthing ground of the "Savage Indian" view.

As much as our combat was a kin to a game of Counting Coup, I am sure there were battles that raged as if all was on the line. In some cases, it was. Take the long history, between the Cree and Innu(as pointed out by Colpy in another thread). This was more then Counting Coup. I would assert that this war was the result of scattered and scarce resources, which as we all know would lead to a hightend state of aggression, when fought over.

But back to the birth of the "Savage Indian".

Perhaps, it was the informality and shear forocity in the form of combat exposed to the Europeans, by the Natives. That lead to this assumption. When push came to shove and fear took takes over, all bets are off and the Natives came out swinging.

Dispite there lack of formallity, they were effective in the hunting of men. Centuries of stalking, wily game in the virginal forests, teaches a form of tactics, that was unheard of in European combat. Ambushes, swarming and the like, were not traditional tactics adhered to by the Europeans, no?

With this sort of malay, running at you from all sides, a built in sense of superiority and the emmense ferocity of the Natives in combat, could easily lead one to assumption, that Natives were mere savages.

I think there was far to little respect for us, floating arround at the onset of colonialisation. The otcome of that is in our history books now. Only being changed as we challenge the status quo for greater respect. Hence the article in the OP. Which floors me. In this day and age, how these archaic notions acn be desplayed as fact, is rather telling, of the long road ahead.
 

selfactivated

Time Out
Apr 11, 2006
4,276
42
48
62
Richmond, Virginia
I may be off topic but.........


[edit] Origins

Around the 15th century certain European states began expanding overseas, initially in Africa, later in Asia and in the Americas. In general, they sought mineral resources (such as silver and gold), land (for the cultivation of export crops such as rice and sugar, and the cultivation of other foodstuffs to support mining communities) and labor (to work in mines and plantations). In some cases, colonizers killed the indigenous people. In other cases, the people became incorporated into the expanding states to serve as labor.
Although Europeans recognized these people to be human beings, they had no plans to treat them as equals politically or economically, and also began to speak of them as inferior socially and psychologically. In part through this and similar processes, Europeans developed a notion of "the primitive" and "the savage" that legitimized genocide and ethnocide on the one hand, and European domination on the other. This discourse extended to people of Africa, Asia, and Oceania as European colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism expanded.
The myth of the "noble savage" may have served, in part, as an attempt to re-establish the value of indigenous lifestyles and illegitimatize imperial excesses - establishing exotic humans as morally superior in order to counter-balance the perceived political and economic inferiorities.
The attributes of the "noble savage" often included:
  • Living in harmony with Nature
  • Generosity, fidelity and selflessness
  • Innocence
  • Inability to lie
  • Physical health, disdain of luxury
  • Moral courage
  • "Natural" intelligence or innate, untutored wisdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage#Origins
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I may be off topic but.........


[edit] Origins

Around the 15th century certain European states began expanding overseas, initially in Africa, later in Asia and in the Americas. In general, they sought mineral resources (such as silver and gold), land (for the cultivation of export crops such as rice and sugar, and the cultivation of other foodstuffs to support mining communities) and labor (to work in mines and plantations). In some cases, colonizers killed the indigenous people. In other cases, the people became incorporated into the expanding states to serve as labor.
Although Europeans recognized these people to be human beings, they had no plans to treat them as equals politically or economically, and also began to speak of them as inferior socially and psychologically. In part through this and similar processes, Europeans developed a notion of "the primitive" and "the savage" that legitimized genocide and ethnocide on the one hand, and European domination on the other. This discourse extended to people of Africa, Asia, and Oceania as European colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism expanded.
The myth of the "noble savage" may have served, in part, as an attempt to re-establish the value of indigenous lifestyles and illegitimatize imperial excesses - establishing exotic humans as morally superior in order to counter-balance the perceived political and economic inferiorities.
The attributes of the "noble savage" often included:
  • Living in harmony with Nature
  • Generosity, fidelity and selflessness
  • Innocence
  • Inability to lie
  • Physical health, disdain of luxury
  • Moral courage
  • "Natural" intelligence or innate, untutored wisdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage#Origins
An excellent addition self!

I wonder why it is that some of the Europeans noted such qualities, yet still stifled the expression of Native culture, beyond that of a sideshow or entertaining evening at the theater?

I should note though, that not all Europeans were in the castugating boat. The Coureur de bois lived among us and thought highly, in most cases, of us and our ways. Although, this was not always the case, as some sot only to exploit us and reep the rewards of the fur trade.