to point out civility in a blog thread. It’s a shame that it’s rare enough to merit attention, isn’t it? OTOH, it only takes a couple of people to be thoughtful – or to be really snarky – and most of the thread follows suit either way.

I take some issue with characterizing American Indians as either extinguished, conquered, weaker, or losers in colonization. I’ve posted elsewhere about the contemporary reality of tribes and Indian people in the US, and hope I’m able to convey that tribes and Indian people are alive, thriving, contributing, and growing AS Indian people and as nations. Beware to declare “Mission Accomplished” too soon. :D If anything, that we are living together – Indians and Non-Indians – proves that the Indian way is actually winning the war. (But I can be a little overly optimistic - see also my unequivocal support of the 2007 A’s).

I haven’t yet said this, but I disagree in my mind, heart, and soul about this characterization of humanity. I realize my opinion stems from a different world-view and teachings. Nonetheless, I believe, despite actions of people to the contrary, that human nature is as benevolent as creation (God, The Universe—call it any name you like), of which humanity is both a part and whole.

I’ve argued “human nature” at length over the years with one of my best friends (a student of military and world history who has been convinced by the totality of the empirical evidence that humanity is by nature greedy, selfish, nasty, brutish, -etc). Our argument ended when he said, “Look, if I have and island and you have and Island, I’m going to want your island. I’m going to come over and kick your ass and take your island. That’s just human nature.” I replied, “The fact that I did not first covet your island, that I did not first come to your island and kick your ass, proves that it is NOT human nature. So quit excusing your nasty behavior by blaming human nature and own yourself. ” That’s been the last word for about five years now.

Really, it doesn’t take much to alter the tone of a thread, or to alter the course of human history: “just” a small change in worldview, the willingness to see empirical evidence differently, and an attendant adjustment in behavior.

The Iroquois did stop English (and Dutch) settlement, for about 150 years, by a combination of force and diplomacy. The fact that European expansion was blocked across a large region in the center long after it was open to the north and the south was a major factor in the shaping of our country (eg, why NY didn’t become a dominant colony until after 1800) and affected demographic patterns that last to this day (eg, why the Scots-Irish immigration was channeled down the Shenandoah Valley and not up the Mohawk).

The traditional look at American history tends to leap from 1620 to 1756 with barely a glance at the formative period between. As a result we Americans often overlook just how long the colonies lived side by side with the Iroquois. A century and a half of prosperity (not even counting the time before the Europeans arrived) is no small achievement. Plenty of successful states in Europe lasted no longer.

A number of factors went into the eventual decline of the Iroquois state, but I would not count not realizing what they were up against or who their true enemies were among them.

By all accounts Louis Sockalexis was considered a very attractive man—notions of “exoticism” and “otherness” notwithstanding. (Perhaps the Jacoby Ellsbury of his day.) I like what Johnny Bench (also Indian) had to say on this topic, “I’ve seldom seen a horny player walk into a bar and not let out exactly what he did for a living.” On the other hand, women are to ballplayers as flies to shit, so who knows how attractive he really was. Nevertheless, Lou was quite the ladies’ man and caroused at Babe Ruthian levels.

At any rate, it’s incredibly paradoxical to me that people will perpetuate the story that the team from Cleveland was named for Sock, and yet still have such a F-ugly mascot.