<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Courier New; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>I have a lot of books on Northwest History and the Nez Perce, in fact on my
father's side of the family we trace back to Chief James of the Lapwai Band and
Chief Joseph is supposedly my Great Great uncle. I also have relatives on the
Nez Perce Reservation and the Umatilla. Also if it had not been for the usual
government screw ups the war could have been avoided all together, Even General
Crook did not agree with the orders he was given.</DIV>
<DIV>Glen Jones</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A title=mailto:CKlooster@aol.com
href="mailto:CKlooster@aol.com">CKlooster@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:or-roots@sosinet.sos.state.or.us
href="mailto:or-roots@sosinet.sos.state.or.us">or-roots@sosinet.sos.state.or.us</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:57
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [or-roots] Chief Joseph and
the new baby</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
PTSIZE="10" FAMILY="SANSSERIF">Well. I thought my wry comment regarding the
pursuit of Chief Joseph might provoke a response. Such a fiery response
is a welcome indication that we genealogists/historians are not wizened
academics; we are clearly people of passion...or at least passionate
conviction.<BR><BR>Revisionist history is an interesting topic. I think
it possible that many of us working on family histories are interested in
revising our personal histories; or at least getting to the root of family
puzzles, myths, and closet skeletons. History, whether family or nation,
is not necessarily carved in stone...though it is often written in
blood.<BR><BR>I <I>have</I> researched the saga of Chief Joseph as a part of
course work in federal Indian law. I've read copies of documents and
reports made at the time. Did you know that there were petitions signed
by settlers in the area demanding that Chief Joseph's band be left
alone? Are you aware that an unscrupulous federal Indian agent went to
an equally unprincipled member of Joseph's band and obtained a signature
ceding the land the band occupied to the federal government in an attempt to
"quiet the title" to the land occupied by the band...and that said agent later
admitted, in writing, that he knew that the signer had no authority to sign on
behalf of the tribe?<BR><BR>"Aunt Charlotte" of course, is entitled to her
version of history; but it is only that, <I>her version. </I>One problem
with history as written in text books and taught to us in school is that it is
one-dimensional and taught from a single (and often not unbiased)
perspective. The other problem with such history is that it is often
peppered with half-truths, or is sometimes patently untrue. <BR><BR>As a child
growing up in Oregon and Washington, I found it interesting that there were so
many instances of Indians assisting the settlers that arrived to occupy their
land. Later, researching things such as the beginning of the Rogue River
"Indian war", it was clear that skirmishes and battles often began as a result
of arrogant and inhuman acts by white thugs. Other incidents appeared to
be the result of clear cultural misunderstanding. The certain result was
that innocent bystanders were caught up in the aftermath.<BR><BR>I've been
living in an Alaska Indian community for the past twenty-five years. The
last thing I would ever say is that "...poor Indians were just peaceful loving
people that wouldn't bother a sole (<I>sic)". </I>Setting some definite
cultural differences aside, the people with whom I live are neither less nor
more peace loving than the non-Indians I know. Some are spiritual; some
are not. Some are respectful and considerate; some are rude and
inconsiderate. They are human, with the gamut of human traits.
This is my point. They were no less human in Chief Joseph's time.
<BR><BR>It has long been a political tactic of leaders to demonize "the enemy"
by portraying them as less than human. It has also long been a political
tactic of those in power to further their aims by creating enemies against
which to unite a populace. Unfortunately, like so many sheep, we of the
populace too often fail to think for ourselves or to question the "facts"
being fed to us by those in power. So it was in the time of Rome, and so
it remains today. Those few who do question the "facts" are often
ignored or forgotten in the writing of the official "histories"...just as the
petitioners on behalf of Chief Joseph's band were not only ignored at the
time, but also ignored by those writing the official history of those
events.<BR><BR>Revisionist history? I'm all for it if it brings forth
facts that were overlooked or unknown when the "official" version was
penned. Perhaps if "we the people" had a more thorough understanding of
our history, warts and all, we would be in a better position not to allow our
leaders to repeat
it.<BR><BR>Carla<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>