Is it wrong regarding Native Americans to deny oral traditions? [closed]

Question

There is a user who insists on removing a son of Meriwether Lewis because she does not see any DNA evidence, and also because she does not trust oral traditions.

In my view, ignorance of evidence is not evidence. Just because one person does not want to take the time to search out the families and find DNA evidence does not mean that that evidence is non-existent.

Further, there are two historical sources, attested to by the son of Meriwether Lewis and his great grandchildren, that their family are descendants of Meriwether Lewis.

But most glaring here is the lack of sensitivity to Native Americans, who through thousands of years of necessity, passed information down to their descendants using oral traditions. Granted that most Europeans rely on paper records, which can still be grossly inaccurate, but our history of paper records in no way negates the validity of Native American traditions.

What Wikitreer, who has no genealogical connection to the family, has the right to question this family's oral tradition of being related to Meriwether Lewis? This family has every right to their claim, especially since there is no evidence presented to the contrary. The only argument used against the claim is that someone chooses not to believe the story.

Comments

Kathy, why do you not consider church records and local history books "some sort of corroboration?" Why is the lack of an alternative father not considered as "some sort of corroboration?" There are literally tens of thousands of profiles on Wikitree with no better references than church records and local histories.

How is it any different for a local historian of a Virginia colony to write down on hearsay the father of a family, than it is for the local historian of Lyman County, South Dakota to write down the father of a family based on hearsay? Don't you see the hypocrisy here? There is one set of standards for European descendants and a different set of standards for Native Americans. This is bigotry. If the son of Meriwether Lewis cannot be linked because of the standards you are setting, then neither should any other profile with similar or lesser references. No, I do not agree to disagree. I want to see justice, and equal treatment, to be served to the Lewis family.

---

If the baptismal record was created when Joseph was born then I would be much more inclined to accept it, but he was baptized late in his life.  Newspaper articles and local histories are full of mis-information.  My skepticism of this claim has nothing to do with the fact that Joseph was Indian.   Extensive records were kept on a daily basis by several members of the Lewis and Clark expedition.  Scholars who have studied the information seem to have collectively come to the conclusion that Meriwether Lewis was probably not Joseph's father for a variety of reasons. In the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, I choose to accept the scholarly conclusions.

---

Kathy, Why would you be more inclined to accept a baptism record for a child than for a grown man? I fail to follow your logic on this point.

Also, how do the extensive journal records concerning the layout of the land and the cultural practices of Native Americans play a part in this. Did Meriwether keep a journal of all his sexual behavior, too? I fail to understand how the journal records play a part in determining that his son's story was false.

Nothing you are presenting contributes to the genealogical discussion at hand. You do not have any information to negate the story. You, and others, are merely using your personal prejudice to judge something you have no knowledge about. Don't hide under the term "skepticism" when the discussion really leads back to the term, "bigotry."

Evidence has been presented by Joseph and his great grandchildren, who have cultural oral history traditions, which explicitly claim Meriwether Lewis was the father of Joseph DeSmet Lewis. Joseph made this claim in a church and to church officials. What reason do you suppose he would jeopardize the baptism by telling a lie? Why not just give his true father's name at this solemn occasion, which he likely did? No evidence has been presented to prove otherwise. Other European profiles on Wikitree have similar weak evidence, but no cultural practices for oral traditions. We allow European profiles to exist on this same weight of evidence, but "gut" feelings lead some people to treat this Native American family differently. That again leads back to the term, "bigotry."

---

A baptismal record close to a birth would likely mean that the mother and other members of the immediate family were available to provide firsthand information.  That doesn’t guarantee accuracy, but I think it makes it more likely.  It also can corroborate or approximate a birthdate.   

The Lewis and Clark diaries are quite detailed, with names of various chiefs and others they met, describing the numbers and appearance of individuals and the interactions of the expedition with the various people they met. There are often accounts from three or four individuals for the same day so they are not just one person’s view of events.

---

If this were an obscure man about whom there are few or no records, and who is said by local tradition to have married a Native American woman, there probably would be merit in documenting that tradition. But Meriwether Lewis is a famous man whose life has been extensively studied by historians, not an obscure person whose life is largely unknown.

---

There are records that corroborate the connection of Meriwether Lewis and Joseph Desmet Lewis. The Lewis name even appears frequently in his descendants. Joseph's son, John Lewis DeSmet was born 1843. This is well before the baptism in 1872.

As far as whether Meriwether is well known, or not, there is still no evidence that Joseph DeSmet Lewis has any other father than the one he claims. You would deny a family their ancestry just because their ancestor is well known?

---

Your argument is that no one has proven Meriwether Lewis ISN'T the father? In 1805, the world's population was about 1 billion, meaning that half that number (approximately 500 million human males) COULD have been Joseph DeSmet's father. Prove to me Napoleon wasn't Joseph's father. Or King William IV, or Thomas Jefferson, or Ludwig van Beethoven. Any of these men COULD have been the father.

---

Jessica, no, my argument is that nobody has an alternative father for Joseph DeSmet Lewis. It would be very easy to prove that Meriwether is not the father of Joseph if someone could provide his real father. The lack of that proof supports the claim of Joseph that his father was Meriwether.

---

glad this got fixed  :)

---

It's not fixed, Arora. An edit war is going on.

Answer 1

If there is actual documentation that shows that Meriwether Lewis had a son, please post it.  Asking for documentation has nothing to do with bigotry, and everything to do with including evidence to support the facts in a genealogy or biography.  Was this person recognized as Lewis' son during his lifetime or was the claim made after he had died?  Does the claim fit with the records kept during the journey of Lewis and Clark?  Are there male  descendants who have Y-DNA tested?  It appears in this case that the only way to know for sure would be through DNA due to the lack of contemporaneous records, but there may be documents that would point one way or the other.

Comments

Kathy, I agree that this profile is far from being certified as completely accurate. As we all know, genealogy is not instantly clear. It may take several more generations before this particular family can be proved with absolute accuracy. We often have to make nebulous links to family members, and then try to approach the family from a different angle to see if the data proves or disproves the family.

The family of Meriwether Lewis is entitled to this same courtesy.

Keep in mind that this particular family lived in the old Dakota Territory when it was opening as a frontier to Europeans. Tensions between Native Americans and Europeans were high, and there are numerous examples of blood shed, not only in wars, but in one on one confrontations of Native American families and European families. The Dakota Territory was on the other side of Illinois, and Illinois was not even a State. My ancestors, who were among the very first of the homesteaders after the Revolutionary War, settled in Southern Illinois right around 1799-1800. Meriwether Lewis lived even before this time.

The distrust among the races was a major source of anxiety for everyone at that time. Meriwether Lewis was caught between the cultures. He was relying on the friendship of the Native Americans to help him take their land away. His job was far from enviable.

If the Native Americans say that Meriwether Lewis was their ancestor, it is not something they would have advertised widely in the early 1800s. It would have been a source of shame, not pride. What motivation would there be in the 1800s for the son of Meriwether Lewis to claim him as his father, when his ancestry was Native American? He didn't make such a claim until later in life, when he and his family finally forsook their cultural heritage and sought baptism at an Episcopal church. It was a very sad time for them, not a time for inventing relationships to the man who led the expansion of the United States.

It just wreaks of bigotry to say that Joseph DeSmet Lewis could not be trustworthy due to the timing of his claim. If anything, the timing of his claim proves that he is, in fact, the son of Meriwether Lewis. He was finally broken in old age and only after a long life surrendered his native culture. I would think that of all people, you would understand that.

---

Is there any proof for the statement that being a descendant of Meriwether Lewis would've been shameful to any Native American in the 19th century?

---

Jessica, Proof? Have you read history from the perspective of those who wrote it from that time period? Try reading the early histories of Illinois counties, such as Randolph, Union, Jackson, Pope, Pulaski, and Alexander. There are numerous accounts of the hostile environment on both sides. The natives were not at all ashamed of throwing tomahawks into the backs of the European invaders.

Read about the French and Indian War, the stories of the Pioneers who settled Tennessee and Kentucky, and even the early Virginia skirmishes. I have direct ancestors all the way back to the New England colonies who were killed by natives.

So yes, if you read the available history about the tensions these people felt toward each other, then you will see an abundance of proof that natives would be ashamed to claim European ancestry, and also the Europeans were ashamed to claim Native American history. It was a very prejudiced society back then. It was the same kind of widespread prejudice that attended interracial marriages between blacks and whites during the sixties.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Meriwhether was actually murdered by prejudiced people in Tennessee because he had sexual relations with Native American women. To have such a person at that time period appointed as Governmor of a Territory would have raised some very strong passions among those who fought against the Native Americans or whose families were slaughtered by them. So again, yes, there is ample proof that people in the early 1800s would have been ashamed to publicly state their mixed race ancestry, and especially for natives being related to the guy who was leading the expansion of the United States into Native American territory..

Answer 2

Ok... The answer to your question depends on the circumstances. It is Bigotry If the user outright denies the possibility of being true because in his mind Natives spread mythical tales and such. However this user was right to remove the son because his status is undetermined. It doesn't matter if there is a good chance that he was the son. You can't say that he is the son if you are not 100% certain. As for oral stories, they are inaccurate as compared to paper records. If you have ever heard a fairy tale or played telephone you know things get distorted over time.

Comments

Evan, are you saying that Native Americans who sought to be baptized during the later Frontier days, after having lost their homeland to invaders, are making up fairy tales of being descended from their conquerors?

The paper records we rely on for genealogy are filled with errors. Have you ever encountered six different birth years over a range of twelve years for a single person across multiple census records? Have you ever encountered records indicating three different death locations for a single person? Have you ever found an online, written family genealogy that was just a conglomeration of people with the same last names?

Just because it is in writing, or a government record, does not necessarily mean it is accurate or even true at all. In this particular case, we have a Native American family whose story was included in the local history book, and also in church records. There is absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, that claims an alternative father for Joseph DeSmet Lewis, or that in any way discredits his story. And yet, there are people implying he wasn't telling the truth, demanding a DNA test before passing Go, and claiming that this Native American family is subject to prudish European genealogical rules (which even we European descendants don't fully abide by). This is just wrong.

Answer 3

Yes it is and all the answers so far prove that - if there was documentation (white mans records) then it is proved whereas it was only told to the next generation and so on so it is not proof - and they forget that it is not "telling stories"  like they would do in their culture but a serious passing down of names and what the person did who came before them back through the generations with no one left out, exaggerated, or minimized, good or bad - you have to realize their legacy comes down that way, not like ours, on paper

In this case I would use the problems with members protocol

Comments

In addition I have seen that many times the written records for First Peoples by white people are in error - sometimes due to the white not recording accurately, and sometimes because the reported information from the indigenous person was miss told on purpose, for though they are usually very honest, they may have lied to protect themselves or family,

When promises are broken, trust is lost and then deception may be the key to survival

---

I certainly do not want to have impolite or rude or anything, but it is true even if it is innocent because of not understanding other cultures

It may be it is not seen as - but is bias

And maybe there should be two different words - for knowingly discriminating, and just misunderstanding another 's ways - I I do not pretend to know much about it at all, but I do know it is what appears to be going on.

Answer 4

We could have an interesting and illuminating discussion about whether and under what circumstances oral tradition constitutes a reliable genealogical source.  Or we could discuss this question, which steps way over the line into 'if you disagree you are a bigot' territory.  If that's not the basic premise of the question, it certainly is the direction the thread has taken.

I would hate to see this become an acceptable standard of discourse on G2G.  That would mean the end of my participation.

Comments

Herbert, Whereas I understand and agree it would be useful to have an illuminating discussion on what oral tradition means, I feel it needs to be pointed out (and that's part of the discussion) that double standards are annoying, and will inevitably lead to tension.

My understanding of WikiTree procedure is we should explain where the information comes from and provide sources if those can be found.

It seems this discussion started because somebody thought oral tradition was a worthless source, to the point where there was a request (or an order?) to remove the presumed son. If that treatment is notably different from what happens with other historical profiles, it leads to a conclusion that there's a double standard. That's part of the discussion too.

---

C Ryder, thank you. This family is being treated horribly wrong and by different standards than other families. I simply want this family to receive the same benefit of the doubt as most other families receive. If information does surface that disproves the connection, then the story changes. However, for now the evidence is in favor of the family claim.

Here is a case to demonstrate my objectivity in this matter. My 3rd great grandmother, Margaret Elizabeth Bond, claimed that she was the niece of Shadrach Bond, the first governor of Illinois. She even had it written on her tombstone along with her maiden name. Unfortunately, the historical records proves otherwise, and I had to state this in her profile. The claim is only good as long as the facts support it. If I won't let a false claim stand that would tie me to a notable figure, I sure wouldn't allow it for anybody else.

Right now, the facts support that Joseph DeSmet Lewis is the son of Meriwether Lewis, and the record should so state. 

---

Please share the actual records where Joseph named his father.  Thank you.

Answer 5

The profile of Joseph includes the following quote from a book.  Has anyone found the actual baptism and marriage records referenced in this quote? 

"Yankton Mission registers of the Diocese of South Dakota (Episcopal), Joseph DeSomet Lewis (also spelled "DeSomit" in the register) and his wife, Annie Tamakoce, their sons, Francis S. Lewis, Joseph W. Lewis, and two of their grandchildren by another son, John DeSomit Lewis, presented themselves for baptism on June 18, 1872. Joseph DeSomet Lewis (age 68), gave as his place of birth Yankton Agency, his father's name as "Capt. Meriwether Lewis (of Lewis & Clark's Exp.)," and his mother's name as "Winona.""

Comments

Hi Eowyn, I'm glad there are lots of people who understand Wikitree formatting and can put together timeline pages that work for solving problems. This sounds great, and I am very excited about all these wonderful things. I sure wish someone would point me to one of them so that I can see what they are talking about.

---

Kathie, thank you for the links to the Territorial papers. I can see that once again ancestry.com butchers the data. The ancestry "Reconstructed Census Records" indicate a residence year of 1820 for the entry on page 275, when it is clear from the actual source that the entry was specific for 1 October 1816 to 31 March 1817.

However, there are qualified researchers who place Reuben Lewis in the Territories from 1807 to 1820, He was a government agent from 1810 to 1820. If he was still a government agent for the Territories in 1820, it would make sense that he would still be physically present in the Territories. He was also a merchant and slave owner/trader. He traveled the Territories extensively. Being a merchant and slave owner, he had to have a base of operations somewhere; a home. Being a recipient of mail, he again had to have a home. He traded horses with the Indians, which means he must have rode horses. I live in modern times, and even I have walked 35 miles in one day through the high deserts. It is not difficult for someone on a horse to travel from St. Louis to South Dakota, conduct business, and travel back in a few weeks time, and then take another trip to Arkansas that same season. 

Patricia Zontine wrote a brief biography on Reuben Lewis, which is published at the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies. I had put a copy of this biography on Reuben Lewis' profile (which I had found on ancestry.com) last night.

I have noticed that there is not a census record for Reuben Lewis in Albemarle County, Virginia for 1820, which suggests he still had not returned from the Territories by that year. His marriage to Mildred did not take place until 1822. 

Also, as a courteous researcher would do, please acknowledge when you agree that I have provided evidence that supports my position (either totally or partially) or that changes your view. So far, you have been entirely antagonistic and have not offered any gratitude for my efforts or acknowledged the validity of any of my points. We are seeking agreement, so let us find where we agree. Has your view evolved any since we began conversing? Have you learned something you agree with, and that you didn't know before? Is there a point that is clearer to you, or a point you feel warrants further investigation? I find it difficult to believe that the information I have been presenting is ineffective at resolving this case.

---

David, I have repeatedly requested seeing the actual records where Joseph himself names his father.  As that seems to be a primary point in your argument, it feels very important that we actually see these records.

If this was my family or focus of research, I would not at all be satisfied with someone "claiming to have seen them" or the records being described generally in a book written over 100 years later.

---

I have started a page where all this documentation and links can be posted:

Space:Joseph DeSmet Lewis documents

Anyone interested in this topic should feel free to add information.

I am not taking any position on the question.  I am not related to any of these people.  I just think that a questionable relationship should be backed up with some fairly substantial research and evidence.  

---

Well it's not like the neighbours saw Meriwether playing with his kid in the yard.  Apart from DNA, there's very little scope for evidence to emerge here.

Any amount of stuff based on what Joseph told people is neither here nor there.  They didn't know if he was right, how could they?  He couldn't know if he was right.

---

I agree and think that without DNA the best anyone can do is to say that  one conclusion is more likely to be correct than the other one.

---

Can you make a hot link to the space page for those of us who do not know how to write the url manually?

---

Free space page for Joseph DeSmet Lewis is at

[https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Joseph_DeSmet_Lewis_documents Lewis]

---

Regarding DNA evidence for this family, someone sent me a private email message and a link to amertribes.proboards.com. I have copied and pasted a relevant post below. I will see if I can contact the descendants and get them to post their results to Wikitree.

Martin Charger Sep 7, 2016 at 1:14pm cococat likes this

Quote 

Post by crashsmashley on Sep 7, 2016 at 1:14pm

I have a interesting note to add to this tread  I took a DNA test from ancestry.com and did my family tree I am a descendent of Joseph DeSmet Lewis so I added Meriwether Lewis in my tree as my 4th great grandfather. After about 6 months I was looking at the program and noticed it had a shared in the DNA matches a Shared Ancestor hints. Basically if you and another member share a common ancestry and your family trees match it will show you how you are related to other members. Going through the matches I got into the distant cousin and found I have several that are from Meriwether Lewis family line. So I had my Great Aunt tested and it is showing the same thing. I have called Ancestry and asked if it could be a false hit they have assured me that it is not a false hit. I'm going to continue to test family members and I'm going to try and get members of the Martin Charger to take the test. We are also connecting to members that are descendants of Basil Clement - Claymore which confirms we all share the same Great Grandmother Anna Tamakoce Waste Win (Good Ground Woman). She has left a unique genetic lineage being first married to Thomas Sarpy a member of the Chouteau family the to Joseph Desmet Lewis the son of Meriwether. 

 

---

"As recorded in the Yankton Mission registers of the Diocese of South Dakota (Episcopal)"

David, where is this record, please?

Answer 6

Lacking a response from the original poster, I went searching for the origins of the claim that there exists an 1872 adult baptism of Joseph DeSomet Lewis. Note: Joseph's profile cites a find a grave profile for this claim and that profile contains no such claim. The other footnote on Joseph's profile associated with the claim actually goes to a blogpost that doubts the parental claims of Joseph!

Googling finally found this newsletter of the 

Oregon Chapter of the  
  Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation

http://or-lcthf.org/Archives/or_n0109.html

This newsletter cites a 2000 book for the baptism record : 

Harry F. Thompson, Meriwether Lewis and His Son: The Claim of Joseph DeSomet Lewis and the Problem of History, North Dakota History, 2000, pp. 24-37. 

Does anyone have this book? What does it cite for the church record? 

Has anyone contacted the author to obtain a copy of this church record which surely he must have? Or contacted the church itself?

St. Philip the Deacon Chapel, White Swan, Dakota Territory

Comments

I can't find this book anywhere.  It's not in the library of Congress catalog.  It's not on amazon or in the familysearch.org catalog (though other works by its author are), nor anywhere via books.google.com. 

It has one listing in an NIH index: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17214036/

---

It's not a book.  It's an article in the journal of the North Dakota State Historical Society. Perhaps someone can obtain a copy of the article:

Volume 67.3: 24-37

I've requested a copy. 

---

I have requested the information from the Diocese of South Dakota also.

---

I received a copy of the journal article; it includes photostats of the 1892 parish records; it also includes other information about Desomet and somewhat of a discussion of the evidence for and against Desomet as Meriweather's son.  

I encourage all who are interested in this controversy to order a copy of the article. It was under $5 to get a copy.

In the meantime, I'm going to create a freespace page for it as a source, and I will extract the key points.

---

Here's the freespace page where I've summarized the 2000 article:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Meriwether_Lewis_and_His_Son

FYI: The author does NOT conclude that Joseph was son of Meriwether. He takes no stand on that. Instead, he uses the controversy to discuss the challenge of historical research. He does do a careful review of history and documents about the time period. If he concludes anything at all, it is that the exhumation desired by historians and Lewis family members of Meriwether's body (for purposes of determining a) if he had syphilis and b) if he commit suicide) would also reveal DNA that could be compared to Desomet male descendants'. 

---

Thanks for following up, Jillaine! 

Do you know if North Dakota History is peer reviewed?

---

I don't know, Herbert.  But the article I purchased is well sourced.

The bio for the author indicates decent creds: director of research and collections and publications at Center for Western Studies of Augustana College in Sioux  Falls. Also VP and Trustee of the SD State Historical Society; Dixon Wecter Fellow in American Studies at Baylor Univ.; MA in American cultural history; PhD in English; author of several articles.

---

Found it!  "North Dakota History is a refereed journal."

---

It’s the journal of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, so akin to American Ancestors or the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography.

Answer 7

This is the Sokal Affair from the 1990's. You can't use social rules from the humanities to regulate objective science. It isn't European supremacy to claim that Western medicine is superior to non-Western medicine. It's just that the scientific revolution of the European Enlightenment caused one culture to have better physical science than others. The laws of science are divorced from politics and culture and exist as they are. They can't be racist because racism requires the thing to be sentient and self-aware in order to engage in conscious action and thought. Science is not sentient or self-aware and cannot have racist thoughts or behave in a racist manner. To describe objective science cannot be racist if it is tested, replicated, and peer-reviewed. Then it's just objective fact. As historians, we are scientists and there are statistical and other forms of evidence that show oral histories are unreliable. Using a Native American example, a common Native American oral tradition was that the Earth is a turtle shell but we know that it's a planet. If it's bigotry to claim the Earth is a planet and not a turtle shell, then the institutions of society will fail. I'm on the left and we can't engage in postmodernist interpretations of objective science.

Comments

oral histories are unreliable

answered by Jackson Hamilton

.

.

Where did the first written histories come from?  Nobody sat down one day thinking "Oh, I shall start writing things down and it shall one day be known as history".  No, they started by writing down what the ORAL histories and traditions told them.

There are still cultures today that have their lore keepers, their family history keepers, who can recite your family back I forget how many generations.  Go visit Pakistan and India some day, if you have ancestors / relatives there.

I don't remember which WDYTYA episode/s had some of this, but it sure was amazing to see the guy go with his generational recitation.

Don't knock the oral traditions just because they're oral and we modern folk have lost the ability to remember in that way because we rely on the written word and our electronic devices.

---

Plus: the turtle belief was more a "religious" thing, than what we see as history.  The Indigenous Australians also have creation stories.  Almost every culture on the face of the earth has some kind of creation mythos.  We don't usually mix that with historical lore.

---

The first sentence you said doesn't logically answer what I said. Indeed, the first written histories did come from oral histories but the fact that they were written is not what made them reliable. What makes written histories more reliable is the fact that they can be recorded contemporaneously with the events they're about. Answer that. And the Turtle Shell thing was religious but was real to them, they believed it so my point stands. The fact is that after a number of generations, stuff gets lost and sometimes oral histories are true and sometimes they aren't. I'm not knocking on oral traditions because they're oral, I'm knocking on them because they're scientifically less reliable. You're not making arguments based on science, you're making arguments based on politics. The main point I was making is that this entire argument is the Sokal Hoax. It is unscientific to inject politics and social currents into objective science.

---

Also, when talking about oral histories, let's mention what we're actually talking about: dendrite spikes on the hippocampuses of people. The prefrontal cortex interprets and analyzes the arrangement of those spikes from multiple subregions of the hippocampus to command the motor movements of, mostly, the mouth, diaphragm, and larynx. That is interpreted by a second group of people to create their own arrangement of dendrite spikes. That is a oversimplification of the recording and transmission of memories. There are multiple steps in that process and on every one of them, things can and do often go wrong. That is not to mention the subjectivity of memory. Psychologically, everyone lives in System One and System Two, but mostly in System One. That's the subconscious with all of the assumptions, preconceptions, and prejudices held by the viewer. Thirdly, there is always the politics of whatever person or people are tasked with remembering things. Politics is universal and it may behoove the rememberers to misremember things for their own material benefit. All of these things are mitigated somewhat with inanimate objects bearing testimony from a contemporaneous time because while all of these things are issues for scribes recording history, these issues are multiplied in magnitude with each oral transmission.

---

In the Bible God created the world in six days

you are talking nonsense - apples to oranges, not what was being argued, plus you are just wrong

Sure science is not biased, but human interpretation of it is

---

How does your reference to the first Chapter of Genesis have anything to do with my criticism unless you're assuming since I'm defending Western science I therefore must accept as true everything from Western culture and you're somehow pointing out my hypocrisy. I believe in evolution so that sentence you wrote cannot apply to me. It's not apples to oranges, this is very relevant. Postmodernists, of course, claim they believe in science so do creationists. A common postmodernist argument is that they differ on interpretation rather than fact but that's just a rationalization so they avoid looking absurd. The original post is arguing that a scientific method is racist. It's not arguing that the oral histories are more or less accurate (they're less BTW), it's arguing that political considerations should determine objective science which makes my response very relevant. But lastly, your response to me was inappropriate and unprofessional, this forum is for professionals. You may disagree with my thesis but it's not nonsense because the thesis is consistent, supported by facts, is arguing a mainstream position, and flows logically. You may think it is inaccurate but it is not incoherent and it is fully germane to the topic. So, it's not nonsense. As for whether it's just wrong, you didn't make any argument to that end but stated that it was wrong. Engage with me, if you will, but do it with actual arguments and in a professional manner.

---

Depends on the culture remembering it - if your culture to have memories as just "stories" told by old folk to entertain youngfolk that is quite different than a heritage with facts memorized as part of ceremony of coming of age where Histories are recited to pass on through family - which may be far more accurate than what white men have penned about red men

---

I do not disagree that some cultures have lore keepers and those people are probably more accurate than typical gossip. That's not in question but it is questionable as to how accurate those lore keepers are compared to paper records. Gossip may be 30% accurate and lore keepers may be 70% but 70% accurate does not pass most scientific standards of accuracy and it shouldn't. Compared to, not simply written histories which probably are about 80% accurate, but official records like government, corporate, and church records which are more like 95% accurate because those were produced for technical, utilitarian, reasons with the least reason for bias and alteration. I'm not discounting oral histories as sources but merely say that they should not be regarded at the same level as written histories since they tend to be less accurate and if they are unsupported by any non-oral evidence then they should not be regarded as scientifically useful for determining lines of descent. They, of course, often have very valuable information, especially regarding general information about a community rather than specific. Even completely false written and oral accounts are useful, that way, since they rely on the contemporary reality to craft their fiction. HOWEVER, the relatively accuracy or inaccuracy of the method was not the point of my response. Still, that's what people have replied to regarding my post rather than what my response was actually regarding which was the politicization of the science of history. The original post of this thread was NOT arguing that oral histories are more accurate scientifically but argued that ignoring oral histories was racist. That is postmodernism. 

---

For the People who were in North America before whites got here I would trust their word over "documentation' in critical periods for several reasons

First the White folks did not see them as equal, many of them so would would not write down accurate things about them, as they felt it did not matter

Second - I am sure the natives were quite truthful at first when they dealt with the invaders before they saw that this could be detrimental to their situation and so may have learned to lie to survive when whites started taking over their places and lives

Third (and I am sure I could think of more)  those white folks tallying the Natives could skew the figures to benefit themselves of people they cared about.

Think about it from their point of view - now when you have the real information, who is more likely to know?  Your family or strangers who can take your life, children, place where you live, etc

---

That is a very oversimplified view of history. While, indeed the European conquest of the Americas was often nasty and horrific, it was NOT a melodrama. The story of European colonization was not one of noble savages and genocidal imperialists. It is unprofessional to term the European colonists as invaders and to characterize the natives as comparatively benevolent. Half of the maladies visited upon the natives by the Europeans were completely inadvertent and involved disease. Lots of the Europeans who came were not greedy conquerors but desperately poor people escaping various forms of persecution. I'm Charleston born, bred, and still residing, and the majority of Europeans who landed here in 1670 were both indentured servants and died from malaria. And the Aztecs fell, partly, because they'd, themselves, conquered neighboring people and oppressed them into to tribute states, for labor, money, and human fodder for sacrifices. The emotions and language of your response imply an unprofessional approach to history which would seem to undermine an ability to objectively do history.

---

I kept it simple, there is a lot more to it than that, but those three basics should make you question the veracity of any white documentation vs. red oral history - when two cultures come together - and we had more than two here, French Scot, English and several different Nations came together - and we came out with the Métis who came out in understanding - and the rest, those that went back to "their"  people - my ancestors included in failure to understand and accept on equal terms those with other cultures - that is true

Answer 8

Having read the article from the North Dakota History journal, I also re-read other materials we compiled here. 

(Unless I misunderstood her) Kathie F indicated her belief that the 1946 letter from Sam Charger to Doane Robinson was the source of other claims about Zomie (Joseph Desmet Lewis) going to meet his white father. But earlier, KF had mentioned a 1928 article, predating by almost 20 years the 1946 letter.  But the 1928 article is not included in the Joseph Desmet Lewis Docs compilation. Kathie, can you please re-find that 1928 article and link to it?

Returning to the 1946 letter from Sam Charger to Doane Robinson: It conveys the oral memories of John Desmet, son of Joseph, who lived in Lower Brule Reservation (on the Missouri River, just south of Pierre, SD.) John, son of Joseph, described to his nephew Sam Charger the following:

• That Joseph was born about 1803 (age 86 when he died in 1889)
• That Joseph's mother died when Joseph was young and that he was raised by someone named "Sawala". (This implies that Joseph's mother never told Joseph who his birth father was.)
• That as a young man, Joseph spent time with the Traders, and that it was a trader who told Joseph that he was related to a well-to-do white man. (The name of that man was never provided.) The implication here is that prior to the Trader telling Joseph this information, Joseph did not know who his birth father was.
• That on an unknown date/year, possibly the same Trader took Joseph somewhere "down south" down river to meet his "father" [who Sam Charger says could have been "uncle" as long as it was full brother to Joseph's birth father], who had daughters and Mexican helpers, welcomed him, gave him two horses, a gun and more, before Joseph returned north with the Traders. Nowhere in this telling, is the surname "Lewis" mentioned.
  • Some have claimed that "down south" was St. Louis, Missouri. Note that Sam Charger never included the specific name of a town or city where the white father/uncle of Joseph lived. St. Louis is 806 miles from Lower Brule Reservation-- by highway; it would have been more miles by river. How likely is it that they would have travelled that many miles during that era?
• Sam Charger's letter does not claim that Joseph was son of Meriwether Lewis. It does say that IF Meriwether Lewis was an ancestor, he would have been father to Joseph and not to Joseph's son(-in-law?) Martin Charger (Sam's father?).

This oral tradition, then, leads us to see that when Joseph, at the age of 68, was baptized, he reported the name of his father as told to him by a trader when he was already an adult. (Meriwether Lewis died when Joseph was only about 6 years old.) I.e., Joseph did not have direct knowledge of this information; it did not come from his family.  To me, all this further reduces the reliability of the parental claim Joseph made on the 1872 adult-baptism record.

Comments

I kept reading and found a *1915* (!) letter from Sam Charger to Doane Robinson. In this much earlier letter, Sam conveys the story told to him by his MOTHER [daughter-in-law of Joseph Desmet Lewis] and that is that in the year  1824, when JDL was seventeen he went down river with some traders to get a horse.  His reason was because he had a very poor horse and could not fight. He did not name a town.  In this version of the story of his grandfather's father, Sam says that there were two half-sisters at his white father's house. [This means that even if the white man was "uncle," he could not have been Reuben, brother of Merriwether, because Reuben had no daughters.]

In this letter, Sam says that he does not know the English name of his grandfather-- only his Indian names: Long House or Zomie. In this same letter, Sam expresses curiosity about where Doane got the information about Merriwether Lewis being his ancestor. I.e. it was news to him! 

In Doane's response a few pages later, Doane tells Sam that Doane heard the Merriwether story from Sam's father Martin Charger. Doane also says, however "Capt Lewis died in 1809 so if your grandfather visited his father he must have been some other person than Lewis."

Further evidence that the Meriwether-as-father-of-Joseph tradition was inaccurate.

---

Excellent research, Jillaine. Thank you for all the effort you've put into this. I've only been interested in accuracy on the profile and all of this illustrates how well WikiTree works at working to that end.

---

Letter from Samuel Charger to Doane Robinson, November 20, 1915:
: "... and in this history it says Martin Charger a grandson of Meriwether Lewis now I want to know where you got this information, because I asked my mother who is about 87 years of age and still living and this is what she told me, that in the year 1824 my grand father with some white men who was going down the river in a boat he went with them and visited his father and he got two horses from his father but did not like to stay with them so in the year 1825 he ran away from his father's house for he was raised amongst the Indians and so could not speak the English very good this was done when he was '''seventeen years of age'''." handwritten letter digitized at [https://sddigitalarchives.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/manuscript/id/2119 1915 letter]

---

A Brief Biography of Martin Charger written by Samuel Charger is within the correspondence and holds quite a bit info genealogically bout the family, ..Zoomie and his wife, her name, their burial locations etc, also contains names of the Bands, maternal and paternal, children, which died, how, when, where, why, etc

https://sddigitalarchives.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/manuscript/id/2126