Talk:The Great Peacemaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Which name do we use?

  • Saying The Great Peacemaker's actual name outside of prayer is considered disrespectful by many Haudenosaunee people. The preferred nomenclature is "The Great Peacemaker". (This is similar to the Jewish convention of not saying the name of God, or spelling it G-d).

This page and the page for Hiawatha are both literred with this name - this is understandable, because much of the European written literature on The Great Peacemaker ignores this issue of cultural sensitivity.

I'd propose that the proper way to address this issue is to have this page's content copied to a new page called "The Great Peacemaker", and replace all instances of the name with "The Great Peacemaker" (the latter will be doe on Hiawatha as well). If there are no objections, I will do this in a few days.

  • Note: The following has been done as of Oct 24, 2005 03:39:30 GMT

---

  • I object strongly to this. This is an encyclopedia, and we call things by their actual names. We don't call the vagina article hoo-hoo-dilly just because some people are offended. Note for example that in the articles dealing with the Jewish god, the name IS rendered. The Manual of Style clearly indicates that the most common name for a subject should be used for the article title, and I am reverting the page move accordingly. Fawcett5 20:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the problem is with linking from the disrespectful name to the more accepted one. The most common name for this subject clearly is "The Great Peacemaker" and not Deganawidah in native texts and oral tradition, but that might be the other way around in European texts (POV dispute). I wish you would have added an entry to this page and waited for discussion like I did before reverting the page title, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette

This shouldn't be difficult to solve. Wikipedia generally is guided by common usage. The means for deciding on terms to be used in an article is consensus. So we should continue to discuss it here and make decisions in accordance with that guideline. [ As noted above, "The Great Peacemaker" is the more commonly known name. Therefore, I would opt for the renaming of this article to that. However, Fawcett5 makes a good point. We cannot expunge a word from our vocabulary once it has been used. I would suggest that we have a redirect from D********** (written out) to "The Great Peacemaker" and an explanation that Native Americans do not say the word but instead say "The Great Peacemaker." In writing it is , either "D*********" or "The Great Peacemaker". Sunray 15:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Sunray, thanks for the sanity check - what you describe is exactly what I had done before Fawcett5 reverted it and made his changes :/ - I hope he will engage me here in a constructive debate about this issue. Brianski Tue Nov 8 05:08:20 GMT 2005
Looking at the history, that's not quite correct—note, in particular, this edit. It may be appropriate to have the article at The Great Peacemaker (incicentally, is the leading "The" a part of the name, or is it just "Great Peacemaker"?) It may also be appropriate to use "The Great Peacemaker" in most of the article. However, the article must mention any other names that he is known by, especially if they are commonly used in (European) historical works. Kirill Lokshin 12:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it makes sense that we include all names in the article (once). Sunray 20:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're pointing out on that page, Krill? I don't remember the exact sequence of what I did, but I made 3 or 4 edits to change the text of the page, move it to The Great Peacemaker, and make sure the old page redirected to the new. I also left the link spelling his name out at the bottom of the page when I moved the page to "The Great Peacemaker". I felt it was a good compromise to omit the name in the article, but leave it in the links section, because you can't change the fact that "Deganawida" is all throughout the European history books. Re: your side note, I've always heard/read it as "The Great Peacemaker"...
My apologies if I wasn't clear; I think removing the name entirely from the text is a bad idea. A reader of a European history book, having typed "Deganawida" into the search box, will be redirected to an article that never mentions that term—somewhat bewildering, in my opinion; it's unreasonable to expect that the average user will follow all of the external links (or even realize their significance).
I would suggest a wording like "The Great Peacemaker, sometimes referred to as 'Deganawida' (although the use of the term is considered disrespectful ..."; the remainder of the article could then safely use the preferred name, while at the same time making explicit that this article is about Deganawida, and not about some other individual. Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Just did a Google search (FWIW), Deganawida vs. (The Great Peacemaker + Iroquois) and Great Peacemaker vastly outnumbers the other name. I would agree with Kirill, except to amend slightly this: "(although the use of the term is considered offensive by some)" or one could elaborate on who "some" are, i.e., is it only Native Americans who are offended. Thus, I vote for naming the article "The Great Peacemaker" (though I saw several variations on Google, e.g., "A Great Peacemaker" and "Great Peacemaker," and even "The Peacemaker.") IronDuke 04:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Google counts can be tricky, though. "Great Peacemaker" + Iroquois (note the quotes) gets 369, while Deganawida gets 37,800. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I seem to have missed something here: Has anyone actually cited a source which documents that using the name is considered disrespectful by some people? It would certainly be pointless to debate something that turned out to be untrue. And if true, how widespread is the belief? In my experience, information you find on the Internet about American Indian history and mythology, unless from a clearly legitimate source, tends to be bogus, and so getting the facts straight is always the first order of business. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 16:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

And next you are going to suggest we change every mention of God to G_d out of deference to someone's cultural sensitivity? The very comparison you offered discredits your motive and logic. alteripse 02:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok, a few points here...
* First, my apologies - my previous comparison with Judaism/G_d was flawed. Instead of "God" is to "G_d " to the Jews as "Deganawida" is to "The Great Peacemaker" to the Haudenosaunee, a more apt comparison would substitute "YHWH" for "G_d". From that page: "In Judaism, the Tetragrammaton is the ineffable name of God, and is not read aloud." I'll additionally note that Yahweh redirects to the page for YHWH "Tetragrammaton", and the names Yahweh and Jehovah are only mentioned in the external links section. I think this is a good model to follow here, and, as it happens, is what I did originally (including Deganawida in the footnotes). I should also note that the comparison is still not perfect - in Judaism the name is never spoken, whereas in the Haudenosaunee culture, the name is never spoken except in the proper religious ceremony.
* Second, an easy one - let's ignore google counts please. It is easy to make the count go one way or the other, based on what you search for. Google search counts for determining relevance is a bad idea (this is just one link - there are better ones which I can't find at the moment.
* Third - Kevin Myers, thanks for pointing out the obvious :-) ! I should have included this in my original post to the discussion page.
- In "Iroqouis Culture & Commentary" (ISBN 1574160532), by Doug George-Kanentiio, a Mohawk, there are 15 entries in the appendix for "the Peacemaker" and none for Deganawidah or any spelling thereof.
- The official six nations site also refers to him exclusively as The Great Peacemakers on their site
- When the traditional Haudenosaunee people addressed the United Nations in 1977, and in contemporary writing in Akwesasne Notes, the Mohawk publication Haudenosaunee people referred exclusively to this man as "The Great Peacemaker", and not "Deganawida". Much of the address is excerpted and written about in (ISBN 091399023X), much of which is reproduced online: here
- I could go on, but it's been some time since I've actively researched the Haudenosaunee, and I only have access to my personal library of maybe 10 books right now... For what it's worth, I've read everything my University library had on the Haudenosaunee, and visited Oil Springs, Tyendenaga, Oneida, Onondaga, Akwesasne, Allegany, Cattaraugus, modern day Tuscarora. I also spent a few weeks as a journalist on the Oneida reservation reporting on the disputes between the Oneida "Men's Council" and the Schenandoah sisters and friends.
* Fourth, I would claim that it's pretty clear to anyone that has done much research on the Haudenosaunee that the western literature (especially pre-1950 works) tends to refer to "the Iroquois" and "Deganawidah", whereas literature written by the Haudenosaunee themselves refers to "Haudenosaunee" and "The Great Peacemaker". I don't want to dump in a whole library to prove this point, so I would respectfully suggest to anyone who would be inclined to disagree that they do some research before questioning this. Brianski Sat Nov 12 04:41:55 GMT 2005
I'm still not clear on your first point. The article on the Tetragrammaton uses both "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" extensively; we also have a separate Jehovah article. I'm not certain where you're getting the impression that the names have been relegated to the external links section. Kirill Lokshin 05:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Kirill, I stand corrected - weird - I must have mistyped something when I searched that page before. Brianski

A quick comment on use of Google: Google is a mechanism often used by Wikipedians to determine usage. There are ways of employing Google to get an exact count of a term. One such mechanism (Google Duel) shows that "Great Peacemaker" gets 997 hits; "The Great Peacemaker," 840; "Deganawidah," 708. This indicates some (albeit slight) justification for renaming the article based on usage.

There seems to be an emerging consensus about some of the issues raised. Four out of five who commented favor "The Great Peacemaker." On the other hand, most who commented indicated that both names should be referred to in the article. Most agree that a note should be added about the reverence for the name amongst Haudenosaunee. I think we are making progress. Therefore, I would like to make this a proposal and have people agree or disagree. Sunray 08:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal on renaming this article

Proposal:

  1. Rename the article "The Great Peacemaker."
  2. Redirect from "Deganawidah" to "The Great Peacemaker"
  3. The name "Deganawidah" and its variants should be included in the article.
  4. A statement along the lines of that proposed by Kirill Lokshin and amended by IronDuke, as follows:
"The Great Peacemaker, sometimes referred to as 'Deganawida' (although the use of the term is considered offensive by some)..."

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with this proposal and give reasons below. This poll will close on November 19 at noon EST.

  • Agree - "The Great Peacemaker" is slightly more common and is strongly preferred by the Haudenosaunee. Sunray 08:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree - This seems a good compromise - it makes the Peacemaker's actual name secondary without confusion, attempts to minimize unhappiness where possible, but does not ignore the fact that the name Deganawida, for better or worse, *has* been used in the Western literature, which we cannot change. Brianski Sun Nov 13 00:39:18 GMT 2005
  • Agree - I would only suggest that the modified sentence not contain both the words "sometimes" and "some." IronDuke 01:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree - I think the phrasing could be improved by changing "offensive by some" to something more specific; "offensive except in certain ceremonies," perhaps? Possibly a section could be added to the article to give some context to his role in religious practice. Kirill Lokshin 04:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article will at some point need to document that the usage is "offensive to some". I assume Brianski knows what he's talking about, but his sources above, while suggestive, don't go so far as to say that it is offensive to anybody. If he is correct, this raises other questions that the article should eventually address. For example, what do Mohawks call "The Great Peacemaker" in conversation in their native language? Is the practice of only saying "The Great Peacemaker" of recent or ancient origin? (Not all current Native American beliefs are "traditional".) No matter what the article is called, lots of interesting information could be added. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know the translation to the various languages, but I believe Mohawks refer to him as Skennenrahawi (source: Iroquois Culture & Commentary, Doug George-Kanentio) - my guess is the word is more or less the same in the other Iroquoian languages, but I don't know that for a fact. As for the point about offensiveness, it's not exactly what you're looking for, but a site that makes brief mention of the Peacemaker's name not being used is here: [1]. I'll try to scrounge around some more, I think Basic Call to Consciousness discusses this, but unforunately can't find my copy of it right now.
  • I've come across a few sources. Interestingly (and appropriately) many of them are oral comments from Haudenosaunee. However, there are some written sources. A 1990 journal article entitled "No Longer Shall You Kill: Peace, Power and the Iroquois Great Law," by Stephen C. Saraydar has the following footnote:

"The Peacemaker's name is Deganawidah. Out of respect the Iroquois do not refer to him by name except under special circumstances. That tradition is followed here" (Anthropology and Humanism Quarterly 15:1, p. 28).

Sunray 22:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, but would strongly suggest that the sentence about not using it be exactly the same as in the Yahweh article. No one has presented a single argument that there is any difference in the issues and the original proposal was repulsively racist and condescending. alteripse 16:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Alteripse - as I pointed out above, the only difference is that the Jewish name of God is never spoken, and the Haudenosaunee name of the Peacemaker is never said outside the appropriate religious ceremony. Also, it's not clear what you're referring to by "the (racist) original proposal" - care to enlighsten me? -- Brianski
  • In this context I think the difference is minimal. I am curious as to whether you think the article entitled Yahweh should be renamed and the first paragraph should include a bold warning that it is considered offensive to utter the name. If you do think so, why haven't you proposed it there? If not, I think the difference is the "racism" and "condescension"-- that somehow american indian or whatever term you prefer-- religion should somehow be "privileged" in a way that Judeo-Christian tradition should not. It is ironic that one of the major intellectual underpinnings of the French Encyclopedie that was considered so characteristic of the Enlightenment was a discarding of that sort of privilege and the subjection of religious beliefs to the same rationalist scrutiny underlying other intellectual endeavors. So you think american indians, despite the century of cultural mixing, are so superstitious or so unable to understand the rationalist context and perspective of an encyclopedia that we must be careful not to offend by naming? In my opinion that is condescending political correctness of the most repulsive sort. And please understand it not a personal attack against you, just against that type of arguing and bogus "cultural sensitivity". alteripse 18:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how the original proposal was racist. I have not proposed such a change on the Yahweh page because a) I know little about Judaism, and b) Yahweh already redirects to a more neutral term, Tetragrammaton. You're really reading a lot into my proposal that wasn't there. With all respect, I would suggest you think carefully about what you've said and try to figure out where the biases you reference are coming from. Brianski 09:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, folks, it is November 19th and we have consensus for renaming the article. There were some comments from Alteripse about "bogus cultural sensitivity," but he still agreed with the proposal. I think that this is a credit to our ability to collaborate and find a solution that met everyone's interests. Brianski, do you wish to do the honors? Sunray 04:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More naming

First of all, academic historians and 99% of the textual references use the term Deganawidah. I refer you for instance to the article from the highly respected Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which may be considered authoritative [2]. There is no question whatsoever about what is in fact the most commonly used name. In fact, they give the alternate form of his name as "the Heavenly Messenger". Also, I might point out that the vast majority of Haudenosaunee are in fact Christians (and have been for centuries), and see nothing disrespectful about using the name. I will continue to vigourously dispute any attempt to change the name of this article. Fawcett5 14:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are noted. It is too bad that you did not participate in the discussion after your initial posting on the subject. No one has disputed that the name "Deganawida" is commonly used (though it is not more commonly in use than "The Great Peacemaker"). A number of references support the proposal given above, including an academic reference. Be that as it may, however, a poll was taken in accordance with the Wikipedia policy on consensus. Consensus is the way of determining the direction for articles. If you read the policy you will note that consensus for articles is considered a two thirds majority. Thus, even with your disenting vote, there is a consensus. Would you please abide by it? Sunray 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Forward

Fawcett5, instead of reverting changes and blocking concensus, do you care to offer a way to go forward? Brianski 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two rivers flowing parallel?

There's something wrong here:

The Haudenosaunee name for The Great Peacemaker (in Mohawk, Skennenrahawi) means “Two River Currents Flowing Together.” It should be noted that this translation may give the wrong impression, since the two rivers were seen as flowing parallel rather than joining. This refers to the two-row wampum that was the sacred seal between the Iroquois and the whites. This is the first known use of the "separate but equal" doctrine in American jurisprudence.

The name of the Great Peacemaker could not have been related to something regarding Europeans, as he existed before they came to the new world (or at least before they had direct contact with the Iroquois). The two row wampum existed *after* the founding of the confederacy and Skennenrahawi's life. I have heard the tale of two *boats*, one for the Iroquois and another for the European, and the image of them being parallel was intended as a warning to keep people from trying to have one leg in both boats - perhaps this is some of the confusion here?

If you have a source, I'd be interested to see it, because they need to be corrected too :)

Yes, on reflection, I think you are correct in your interpretation. Sunray 08:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
However, I should add that my source (a person rather than a text) maintains that the translation "Two River Currents Flowing Together" does indeed mean parallel rather than joining. While I take your point about the appropriateness of the comment about "separate but equal," and agree that it would logically be placed in another article, I would like a check of the translation of the name. I haven't been able to find much on the Internet. Do you have a source? Sunray 12:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's a source: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_009900_deganawida.htm . Cheers. Brianski 02:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not questioning the translation, but rather the meaning of "Two River Currents Flowing Together." Sunray 06:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Great_Peacemaker_4915.html"