Forum Index > Pacific NW History > The Fur Trade and Diversity
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Mike Collins
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 2464 | TRs

Mike Collins
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2016 3:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Snowbrushy wrote:
One of the things that the local madams liked to trade with were their young girls.

If that said "...their young slave girls." the statement would be more correct.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Snowbrushy
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 6680 | TRs
Location: South Sound
Snowbrushy
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2016 3:46 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I didn't know that they were slaves or abductees. Thanks, Mike. Of course slavery was nothing new to the Americans. In fact Captain Clark brought his own slave along on the journey; York. From Wiki: "York (1770 – c. 1822 was an African-American slave best known for his participation with the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Enslaved by William Clark's father and passed down through a will to William Clark, he performed hard manual labor without pay but participated as a full member of the expedition."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mike Collins
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 2464 | TRs

Mike Collins
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2016 4:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Snowbrushy wrote:
I didn't know that they were slaves or abductees.

When visiting your local King County library the reference librarian can help you gain online access to the complete text of this link. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20610552?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This reference is available on line at home by downloading the PDF and agreeing to their policy.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40474104?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 925 | TRs

Klapton
Member
PostSat Aug 13, 2016 5:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Snowbrushy wrote:
Lewis and Clark traded with the Native Americans. The coastal tribes had already been dealing with trading ships from many nations. Here is what Lewis and Clark brought to trade on the overland journey: http://lewisandclarktrail.com/legacy/tradinggoods.htm  One of the things that the local madams liked to trade with were their young girls. The VD at Fort Clatsop at the mouth of the Columbia River was so bad that Captain Lewis issued orders for the men to only have one girlfriend at a time. I suspect that the madams and young girls got most of those trade goods. Exploitation?

If the girl got a brass pot and the guy got one night of fun and a venereal disease, I think the dumbass man got exploited.  But then, as I said originally, in any voluntary trade, both traders believe they got the better deal.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Snowbrushy
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 6680 | TRs
Location: South Sound
Snowbrushy
Member
PostSun Aug 14, 2016 4:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Klapton wrote:
It's when the government and it's armies showed up that things REALLY went to hell.

That's the rub - The Indian Wars and their racism compared to the citizen business dealings and any racism, and evidence of such. Strict history study is based on evidence.

Klapton is correct in suggesting that trading is usually a win/win exchange just as buying anything is. Is there widespread evidence of crooked business dealings between the Whites and the Natives that could justify removal of the paintings? Are tribes complaining?

Thousands of marriage relationships also developed between the fur traders and Native American women. Are those marriages and painted depictions of them equally suspect? Are the paintings racist stereotyping and should they be taken down? I don't know.

MetisFamily
MetisFamily
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lono
Member
Member


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 928 | TRs

Lono
Member
PostSun Aug 14, 2016 9:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The voyage depicted in the painting was repeated hundreds and thousands of times with the influx of white people, who took over the Indian land often by force and seldom with any recompense to the natives.  I think its the singularity of depicting the white voyageurs coming to the land that is misleading - because behind them came an avalanche of white settlers who had little regard for Indians or their lands and basically took over what they wanted, from Kansis to Colorado to Oregon and Washington.  Even today we are here on borrowed land, borrowed time.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Snowbrushy
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 6680 | TRs
Location: South Sound
Snowbrushy
Member
PostTue Aug 16, 2016 7:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lono wrote:
I think its the singularity of depicting the white voyageurs coming to the land that is misleading - basically took over what they wanted.. borrowed time.

The picture depicts Indians in a canoe who are employees with the whites - no misleading. They can take some personal responsibility for involvement instead of letting a white group lay yet another guilt trip on Americans 200 years too late.

They should play the blame game on the Donation Land Act (1850) which gave legal title to the lands instead of hiding the art.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lono
Member
Member


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 928 | TRs

Lono
Member
PostTue Aug 16, 2016 8:47 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
No one should object to Indians employed by whites - in the early years they had things that they wanted to possess.  From thimbles to fishhooks to axes to guns and ammo.  All this stuff would make their lives easier and at times amazing or magical.  What's misleading is that this was the end of white behavior - the paintings are a snapshot in time, and not nearly the whole story, and as such may be charming but misleading.  It was the following decades of disease liquor and outright takings from natives that everyone should agree were wrong and out of scale.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 925 | TRs

Klapton
Member
PostTue Aug 16, 2016 8:57 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lono wrote:
No one should object to Indians employed by whites - in the early years they had things that they wanted to possess.  From thimbles to fishhooks to axes to guns and ammo.  All this stuff would make their lives easier and at times amazing or magical.  What's misleading is that this was the end of white behavior - the paintings are a snapshot in time, and not nearly the whole story, and as such may be charming but misleading.  It was the following decades of disease liquor and outright takings from natives that everyone should agree were wrong and out of scale.

Every painting or picture is a snapshot in time.  God forbid anyone remember something BEFORE it completely sucked.  Then that's a denial of the suckitude somehow?

I guess I get it though.  I don't keep wedding pictures from my first marriage around, even though I was amazingly happy that day.  (It took her about five years to figure out that she hated me, and three more to leave me, but that's life, isn't it?)
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Snowbrushy
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2003
Posts: 6680 | TRs
Location: South Sound
Snowbrushy
Member
PostTue Aug 16, 2016 10:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lono wrote:
everyone should agree

I get it too. This morning on C-Span I watched a show about the experiences of living children from the holocaust and the day before it was about African Americans and the day before it was about the Indians. If it means anything to you, and it does, I threw-up every time. I get it - I'm the blonde haired blue eyed European type that it's directed at, am I not? I get it; got it 40 years ago. You can spend the rest of your life doubling down and hiding art but you are beating a dead horse. I got it. Excuse me while I throw-up again.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Pacific NW History > The Fur Trade and Diversity
  Happy Birthday bad-daddio!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy