History of Me, Part 6: From Weak States to Strong Empire

I’m back after a busy holiday season and ready to dig in!

In this edition of History of Me, the Reformation planted the seeds of inter-religious conflict that led to foreign invasion, and eventual nationalistic German unification. Sound interesting? Let’s dive in!

NOTE: I am looking into German/Germanic/European history as a function of my own familial cultural roots, and am attempting to do so in an anti-racist, anti-imperial way. For my full reading list and a further note about whiteness, see this post.

After the Reformation…

When we last left our intrepid heroes, Germany/Europe was just figuring out how the heck to survive the upheaval caused by the splitting of the “one true Catholic Church” into several Protestant sects (Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc), each of whom thought they had a corner on salvation and right-ness.

Everybody and their brother in Europe fought in this. Literally.

Unfortunately, many didn’t survive. Religious tensions that bubbled up when various German states (and eventually other countries) converted to Protestantism erupted in 1618 into the 30 Years War, essentially a war that began with German states but grew to include various foreign powers on both sides of the Catholic League / Protestant Union divide.

Now, I didn’t know much about the 30 Years War before I read my readings for this section (chapters 4-8 in Mighty Fortress and Our Daily Bread). If I learned about it at school, it was a blip of a fact to be memorized, so when I began reading I was like “Oh yeah, the 30 Years War.” Thirty years doesn’t sound all that long in the scope of the world. BUT. Think about what it would be like to live in a constant state of war and violence and fear… for 30 years. That’s how old I am right now. So if I was born in 1618, if I survived I would have lived in war for my whole life, because the 30 Years War didn’t end until 1648. Even when it did end, it was common for German villages to have lost 40% of their population during the 30 Years’ War. This is comparable with rates of death due to the Black Plague throughout Europe.

In addition to just being a generally violent and traumatic time for the average German villager, it was also tough time for the German states. Ozment describes this war as “the trauma of the Germans” and a time when “militarily superior nations settled their conflicts and increased their assets” (p.107). Basically, the 30 Years War was the first and most notable in a long series of conflicts in which individual German states (acting separately from the Holy Roman Empire) got swept up in conflicts with much larger and more dominant nations.

Because so many of these wars were driven in large part by larger, more powerful foreign aggressors (Sweden, France, Russia…), anti-foreign sentiment began to rise. (The first King of Prussia, Frederick William, is quoted as saying “I will put pistols in the cradles of my children, so that they can help keep foreigners out of Germany!” [Ozment p.132]) Two main centers of German political power began to coalesce — namely in Austria (led by the Catholic Habsburgs) and Prussia (led by the Protestant Hohenzollerns).

When Napoleon came knocking on Austria’s door in 1792, Prussia and other German states left them to face the French alone by signing neutrality treaties. Unsurprisingly, Austria was soon defeated, and Napoleon acquired much of western Germany in the peace treaty of 1797. In the next few years, Napoleon made some radical changes to French-occupied Austria and western Germany, including officially dissolving the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and totally reorganizing the cities, districts, and religious dioceses of southwestern Germany. (Ozment notes that “more than three hundred sovereign entities [aka cities, states, etc] the French encountered in 1800 had been consolidated into thirty-five at the time of their departure” [p.158].) Napoleon then continued his march east and conquered formerly neutral Prussia as well. The French occupation was painful, but the Prussians got their revenge when their contingent of conscripted troops defected to join the Russians and helped defeat Napoleon in 1812-3.

When the 1814 Peace of Paris reset the national boundaries to restore Germany to Austria and Prussia, these two powers began to fight their way to the top, with Prussia victorious in the Austro-Prussian War in 1866. Despite an economic and agrarian crisis in 1846 (which kicked off large waves of German immigration to the USA), Prussia was able to consolidate power and ride a wave of pro-German nationalism to unify Germany in 1871 under the banner of the Prussian Empire.

The Prussian Empire, 1871

That’s a lot of history there… but it’s interesting to read this from my shoes, because I literally have family from Prussia / east Germany as well as near Austria in now-Switzerland… so when I read this, it’s like I’m reading about my ancestors fighting. For example, In 1864, a united Austro-Prussian army marched into the northwestern state of Schleswig-Holstein and fought Denmark over possession of this territory. So, like, my maternal grandpa’s family and my paternal grandpa’s family got together and invaded my maternal grandma’s home state. Super weird.

It’s easy to see how (a) this was an incredibly traumatic, chaotic, and violent time for the average European/German person, and (b) this began to evolve into the “might makes right” strong-man mentality of the later Prussian Empire.

Also, this (mid 1800’s) is now beginning to get into the period of time when my ancestors immigrated from Europe to the USA… I’ll talk more about that in another post, but I definitely see a lot of “push” factors in terms of a tumultuous climate that may have made it sound nice to start over in a new country.

German Village Life

As with Voices of Morebath, I read Our Daily Bread: German Village Life 1500-1850 by Teva Scheer to get an idea of what everyday village life was like in the midst of all the political chaos.

The first thing I noted at the start of the book was that, again, the 30 Years War had a massive impact on village life. Scheer notes that “both the villagers and their noble lords lived out their lives in small, rural, and isolated worlds” (p.4), but also that “most people’s ancestors… had lived in [their same villages] since the end of the 30 Years’ War in 1648 or earlier” (p.9). So when we think of the self-contained “little town” like in Beauty and the Beast, we’re not entirely wrong… but large national events like wars did have a massive impact on otherwise isolated hamlets. Religion — especially directly after the Reformation — was another major influence from the top down, with Protestant/Catholic conflict being a major driver for war as well.

Other than those things, however, Scheer notes the unchanging nature of many rural villages:

Villages remained profoundly conservative — suspicious of strangers and hostile to any innovation, such as new crops or agricultural innovations. The inhabitants lived too close to the prospect of starvation and ruin to be open to experimentation. Each village tried to be as self-contained as possible. (p.15, emphasis added)

Each village was its own little world with its own local and regional customs, but some generalizations can be made to give us the idea of what life was like. Scheer writes about an imaginary typical family in an imaginary town to illustrate this. Here’s what stood out to me:

  • “Membership” in the town (burgher status) was highly regulated by current residents and leaders — basically, you had to pay a fee and be given permission to join the town. (Seems pretty similar to Morebath, actually.)
  • Villagers still followed the “good old law” (p.35) of Germanic custom in many areas as opposed to the still somewhat foreign Roman law. (That’s how you can tell villages are old school… the Romans were gone like 800 years ago and their laws are still the “new” ones!)
  • Ongoing conflict and deeply entrenched division between Protestant and Catholic villages/people — “As late as WWII, Catholic and Protestant villages periodically came to blows” (p.48)
  • Community leaders strictly regulated many aspects of villagers’ lives, including jobs (villages limited the number of millers or blacksmiths that were permitted to operate there), church attendance (you could be fined or otherwise censured for absence), and marriage (had to get permission, and when that wasn’t given the rate of illegitimate birth rose).
  • “An individual’s position in a community was dependent on the degree to which he or she was considered an honorable person” (p.86). I got this book for my parents for Christmas, and in talking with my dad about it earlier today we talked about some of the cultural values we recognized in the book from our relatives and family culture. We decided that the emphasis on honor definitely crossed the pond… but that it was sometimes a “mixed bag”. 🙂  (This also was a common theme in both the Norse stories and the Sigrid Undset books that I read. Interesting to see the threads stay present but morph slightly over time.)
  • Village life was hardest on women. Between medieval witch trials (which were worst in Germany and led to the deaths of over 100k women across Europe) and back-breaking non-stop labor (manual or child-birth-ical), village life was not easy.
  • Death was a common part of life. Not even to mention all the wars mentioned above… but just in terms of child mortality. Scheer notes that “in general, data suggest that between one-third and one-half of children died before their 5th birthdays” (p.119). I can’t imagine how painful it must have been to know that half your children would probably die. (Also, this explains why so many families in my family tree around this time had so many children!)

Overall, there were some good things — like people knowing each other and working out how to live together as a collective — but also, that collectivism sometimes seemed to turn into conformity and legalism that could be stifling. So, as with all cultures, some good and some bad. 

Although this book is about medieval German village life, it’s written by a German-American for those interested in their immigrant ancestors — so ultimately the book highlights some of the push factors leading to the large waves of German migration to the US in the mid-1800s. We’ll talk more about that in a later post — but even just from what we know already, the combination of lots of wars (chaos) plus and end to those wars (increased population) plus the economic/agricultural crisis of the 1860’s (decreased jobs/food/money to pass on to next generation) make a pretty strong recipe for migration. (Not to mention reports of basically “free” stolen land due to the Homestead Act of 1862… but that’s a whole nother blog series…)

Conclusion

In this post — which, admittedly, covers a lot of time — we see Germany finally coming together as a unified modern nation… an Empire, in fact. But despite political/imperial/nationalistic success, many average people were suffering and struggling. This is the point at which most of my direct ancestors’ stories and the story of the Prussian Empire / German Nation diverge; my direct ancestors immigrated to the US between 1855-1924, so from now on their story will begin to align with the USA’s story instead. We can see Germany getting stronger and more militaristic (foreshadowing the later authoritarian rise of the Nazis), and we can also see a lot of the people falling out the bottom of society, and coming to America in hopes of climbing to the top… so now I really feel like I have a clearer picture of what my ancestors were leaving behind (and some of the why) when they chose to come here.

NEXT TIME: We’ll get to the immigration post soon, but first, I’ll take a one-book trip to Slovakia to learn about the 1/4 of my family tree that I’ve been neglecting so far!

Advertisements

History of Me, Part 2: When Germans Met Romans

In this episode of History of Me, we take a peek at the earliest recorded accounts of “Germans” and their interactions with the Roman Empire. Intrigued? Let’s dive in

NOTE: I am looking into German/Germanic/European history as a function of my own familial cultural roots, and am attempting to do so in an anti-racist, anti-imperial way. For my full reading list and a further note about whiteness, see this post.

Meet the Germani…

For this section I started off by reading the introduction and first chapter of Steve Ozment’s A Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German Peoplefollowed by Rome’s Greatest Defeat: Massacre in the Teutoburg Forest.

Scene: It’s the first century BC. Caesar invades France (then known as Gaul) but mostly leaves the Germanic tribes to themselves, relying on intimidation to keep relative peace. Later after he dies Caesar Augustus (the next emperor) starts to look across the de facto border of the Rhine River toward the land occupied by “barbarians,” aka the yet unconquered Germanic tribes. A small conflict born out of misunderstanding gave Rome an excuse to invade; during the ensuing conflicts a Germanic force led by a Roman-trained Germanic commander called Arminius defeated an army of Roman legions at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest (also translated as the Teutoburg Pass).

I won’t talk much more about the battle in this post, but tuck Arminius’s name away for later. Both Fortress and Forest mentioned how the story of Arminius’s victory over Rome was rediscovered centuries later and became a focus point for German unification and nationalism. So I’m sure we’ll hear of him again.

As I read through the account of the battle and the history surrounding it, I loved learning more about the tribes that lived in present-day Germany/Europe before it was actually called Germany. Fun fact: just like we now call the tribes of this continent “Indians” or “Native Americans,” Romans (outside colonizers) were the first ones to call the tribes in this part of Europe “Germans” (Germani). (NOTE: There is much disagreement about where this name comes from, so the meaning is uncertain.)

A map of some of the tribes that made up “Germania” around the turn of the calendar (100 BC – 300 AD ish)

Steven Ozment notes that “at this time [ca. 100-0 BC] the tribes were neither racially uniform nor transregionally united but composites, ‘loose and shifting amalgams of peoples,’ who formed no coherent Germanic front” (p.17). I also found it interesting that of the tribes who had strong identities at this point, some like “the Franks, Goths, and Lombards developed historical identities by allying with leading, or royal, families and embracing their genealogical myths” (p.17). This actually shows the connection between the ancestral/mythical stories of the previous post and the Germanic tribes recorded here. Like many other peoples, Germanic tribes and leaders found ways to connect their stories to the lineage of the gods by making the gods their ancestors.

The Empire’s bargain…

Even more than the battle, though, the really compelling thing for me about these stories was reading about how the Roman Empire functioned.

Both Fortress and Forest went to great lengths to set the scene and describe what it was like to be a barbarian tribe (or just a barbarian) in the world of Rome. Here are some illustrative passages:

Over the last decades of the old millennium and the first of the new Christian Era, the Romans diminished the threat the tribes posed by brutally punishing their forays [across the Rhine] and finding ways to divide and coopt them. Among the latter were simple human temptations. … Before contact with the Romans, tribal leaders ruled more by persuasion than by coercion and maintained social peace by equitable divisions of land and wealth within the tribe. The new wealth gained from trade with the Romans worked to stratify tribal society, setting new rich against poor and encouraging disproportionate divisions of tribal land. (Ozment p.19, emphasis added)

The Romans sought to have their way with the tribes by transplanting the sons of leading men to Rome, where, to their material benefit, they grew up as Romans. Such transplantation was both by invitation and by hostage taking. Selected elite barbarians were in this way Romanized, many thereafter residing in Rome for the remainder of their lives, while others returned to their homelands as assimilated servants of the Roman Empire. It would be too much to call these repatriated tribesmen brainwashed, since as a rule they served the Roman Empire willingly, gaining new land and wealth for themselves while continuing to enjoy membership in the cosmopolitan Roman world… (Ozment p.20, emphasis added)

Rome promoted leading tribal leaders within Rome’s imperial aristocracy. By recognizing certain chiefs as allies, barbarians were flattered into becoming emissaries for the Roman way of life. It was a practice that first bound them to Rome, then made them dependent on her. (Forest p. 79, emphasis added)

Basically, the Romans came in with their giant empire and their power and their wealth and their military organization and offered tribes (or at least, tribal leaders) a bargain. If they pledged loyalty to Rome, and adopted Roman culture and Roman religion (aka emperor-worship – Romans connected themselves to their gods, too), they would receive power and wealth and move up in Roman society. (And of course, there’s the elephant in the room of “or else.”)

The problem, of course, was that even if they gave up everything that made them “Germanic”, there was only so far they could advance in Roman society. Even Germans or other barbarians who climbed high enough to achieve Roman citizenship still faced barriers:

Citizenship gave affiliated tribes the same legal protections and rights as native-born Italians. Yet, despite acculturation and success, Romanized barbarians, whether Africans, Germans, or Jews, could still find themselves treated as inferiors in the imperial city. That was especially true of the first generation to undergo assimilation. And while the Roman senate looked on tribal elites as occupying the same high position in native societies that senators held in Rome, there was no thought of parity between Roman and barbarian…. While social acceptance might come after full Latin fluency and the fading of native languages and customs, the transplanted barbarian was often, in the Roman perception, a “hyphenated” Roman…. (Ozment p.24)

So cooperating Germanic tribes/leaders gave up their culture, their community, their traditions, their languages, and sometimes their homes — all for a chance to play a game that they couldn’t win, because Romans would always be superior – but at least they got a piece of the pie, and could hope that their less-German, more-Roman children could climb higher than they.

Sound at all familiar? I thought it did, when I heard Pastor Ebony Adedayo, one of the pastors at my church, preaching last Sunday about how white supremacy was created in this country by dividing poor whites from poor/enslaved blacks:

Forsaking language, culture, and history, the newly created white race exchanged its identity for a baseless lie. And the only thing that remained was the lie, or rather the notion that whites were superior to everyone else. In order to preserve that lie, people, politicians, people in high places have gone to great lengths to dehumanize themselves to the extent that it is extremely daunting task to find our way out of it. Not impossible, but daunting.

(You can listen to the full sermon here. Highly recommended!)

Reading all this about the Romans coming to Germania was super eerie for me, because if I change the nouns it morphs into the history of this country — first what was imposed on indigenous tribes here, and then what was also enforced on later immigrants. Give up your tribal/cultural identity in exchange for power and/or survival. Be held back by your “hyphenated” status — until, for my ancestors, their light skin and distance from their “ethnic” past enabled their children to dissolve into whiteness. Or, as the author of Teutoburg Forest puts it: intimidate, conquer, assimilate.

A note about forests versus farms…

When faced with Roman threats (or enticements) of “assimilate or else”, some tribes resisted. Some were conquered. The significance of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest is that it, along with several other battles over the following years, sufficiently delayed the Romans so that their empire and army was too far-flung to fully conquer Germany. They ended up pretty much keeping to the west/south of the Rhine River, and while the tribes to the north/east did trade and integrate with Romans, they were never forcibly conquered. (And in fact later, Germanic tribes ended up overrunning and taking over much of the Roman Empire… but I’m guessing that’s for another post!)

Notice the dotted line — Rome never extended beyond the Rhine into Germania.

But one of the significant downstream effects of this Rhine border being held is that it reinforced the existing regional differences in Europe/Germany:

The battle also reinforced another effect, one less tangible, but one that has had a profound psychological and social impact on Europe and is still being felt today. It confirmed the fault-line between north and south. History could now be used to back up long-held prejudices. [As one historian wrote:] “The slaughter in the Teutoburg Forest divided Europe into the warm south, who forever saw forests as dreadful places to be avoided and cleared, homes to dragons and trolls, antitheses of the civilized city, and the north, who understood [forests] to be healing, protecting, mystical, spiritual places. How you feel about a silent birch forest at twilight says more about your blood and your kin than your passport. (Forest p.7)

We can see how this lays the groundwork for the process of Christianity later sweeping through the wealthier urban centers in the south and pushing Norse stories and traditions north, to the outskirts and the forests, where Snorri Sturleson finally wrote them down a thousand years later in the Edda. I’m interested to keep an eye out now for farm vs. forest and that north/south dynamic as we continue through this project.

Conclusion

I didn’t really expect things to get emotional this quickly, but it was actually really hard for me to read the parts about the tribes taking the Roman bargain, becoming co-opted into the empire, and giving up their ways in exchange for power, money, and influence. I wanted to reach back in time and tell them “No, don’t do it! You don’t know what it’s like to be rootless, without traditions or stories!” But of course, that was 2000 years ago, and now I just have to deal with the choices they made.

Don’t get me wrong — it’s not like they had much of a choice. (Though I’m sure some were more eager to sell out for influence than others.) Given the threat of Rome, I might have made the same decision in their place. Survival is primal, instinctual. But knowing they probably tried to make the best choice they could doesn’t take away my sadness that they took the first step toward losing something beautiful that I wish I could have back.

This, to me, is why Empire (which we talk about a lot at our church) is a perfect analogy for much that is wrong with the world and with how humans treat one another. Rome started this power-grabbing bargain on a large scale millennia ago — they figured out how to systematize power-mongering with their never-ending war-to-captive-to-citizen machine — and it’s kept going and going ever since, and we’re still doing it today. Personal advancement trumps the community. The power game has never stopped.

Anyway, this section has really felt to me like peering into a mirror or a pool and watching a past mistake. (“Noooo Isildor, throw the Ring into the fire!!!”) I know I have some grief and probably even some anger about it. But I’m still glad to have read it, because as Pastor Ebony says, it’s daunting to find a way out – but not impossible. Looking forward to continuing my search.

Tune in next time for a look at the coming of Christianity and The Barbarian Conversion (as well as Mists of Avalon for a fictionalized perspective). 

‘Names on the Land’: The Book I Should Have Finished Months Ago…

If you’ve been counting, dear readers, you will have noticed that it’s been FOUR MONTHS since I posted my last Imperial Geography post. And for someone who is still quite excited about the rest of the reading list for that project, that’s a long time!

names on the land stewartThe culprit: my current book, Names on the Land by George R. Stewart.

You know how sometimes a book sounds really interesting, and then it turns out that the interesting-sounding part is only like 5% of the actual book? This is one of those books for me.

I was really excited to learn more about the social dynamics behind name-choosing — but it turns out much of this book is very detailed, very place-specific historical (or legendary) anecdotes about why such-and-so town and this-and-that river were given the names we use today. While bits of this were slightly interesting — learning why there are so many “brooks” and “vales”, for example — I just couldn’t make myself slog through another 300 pages. (Yes, this book is FOUR HUNDRED PAGES LONG.)

So I gave up.

I used to be a purist about finishing books I started, but when one’s reading list is as long as mine is, you learn not to waste time on books you don’t enjoy.

To be fair, though, there were a couple interesting things I learned from this book. So I’ll share those, and then we’ll be on our way!

Interesting Things I Learned from Names on the Land

1. Americanism vs. Americana

Stewart defines this binary as the conflict between “two primal forces in the American mind” (p.x): Americanism, which represents the large-scale, manifest destiny-like grandiosity of American character; and Americana, which is small-scale, local, and handmade. I think this contrast helps me to have a little more understanding for the “flyover zone” of the country — many of the people I know who live in rural areas seem to have a distant (but still fervent) relationship with Americanism, but are intimately intertwined with their immediate world of Americana.

2. Names, religion, and empire

Stewart notes at the start of the book that “naming was a part of holding empire” (p.12), which makes sense. But what surprised me a little — and sort of creeped me out, as a Christian — were the religious overtones: “The Spaniards, with their love of pomp and solemnity, sometimes took possession of a new country with high formality…. They set up a cross, and held mass; the soldiers paraded and fired guns. …sometimes water was taken from the ocean or a river, and poured upon the dry land as a kind of baptism” (p.13). This really fleshes out the ideology of the European conquerors that they were agents of a militant Christian campaign to claim and baptize “pagan” lands and peoples for the Christian empire.

3. Fake, romanticized Indian names

At the start of the book, I was annoyed that Stewart didn’t spend much time talking about how Native peoples named the land. So when I skipped ahead to the part about Minnesota (I had to at least skim it before I gave up…) I was glad that he at least addressed the wacky European appropriation and romanticization of these names. (Though I wish he did a better job of contextualizing some of the negative things he says about Indians. You’ll see what I mean.) Here are excerpts from the story of European attitudes towards Indian names, according to Names on the Land:

The earliest English explorers, like the Spanish, had recorded Indian names with respect; they were still hoping to discover another Mexico or Peru. The settlers soon came to look upon an Indian as a treacherous savage, dirty, ignorant, poor, and heathen. Indian names fell into the same disrepute. After the Revolution the Indian menace was wholly removed from the sea-coast areas, and at the same time the new doctrine of the noble savage was growing popular. …

The admiration of Indian names as such began with the new love of the strange, mysterious, and primitive. … The forties [1840s] indeed really saw the revival under way. New Englanders in the middle seventeenth century had been seeking an illusion of peaceful civilization by replacing Agawam with Ipswich; two hundred years later, their desires were reversed, and a new town was established as Agawam.

…Most of the contemporary literary figures either by practice or direct advocacy favored Indian names…. Whitman beat the drum [wow, thanks for that] loudly in his American Primer: “I was asking for something savage and luxuriant, and behold here are the aboriginal names…. What is the fitness — What the strange charm of aboriginal names? … They all fit. Mississippi! — the word winds with chutes — it rolls a stream three thousand miles long.” …

Although the revival of Indian names rested basically upon a genuine enthusiasm, it picked up much shoddiness and dishonesty. As the religious mind has often been too ready to admit a pious tale without questioning its actual truth, so the romantic mind accepted a pleasing story and shaped facts to its own wishes. With an old-established name, therefor, the romantics merely declared it to be beautiful anyway…. With other words they selected the least ugly forms, and shifted consonants as they preferred. Nibthaska became Nebraska. …

The romantics also desired names with a suggestion of poetry. The simple primitive descriptives supplied almost nothing of this, but such people generally know next to nothing of Indian languages, and so suffered little restraint. Mississippi, “big river,” was a simple Indian name, but a Frenchman’s false translation “vieux Pere des Rivieres,” led to millions of American schoolchildren being taught the falsehood that Mississippi meant “Father of Waters.” It was a falsehood not only about a single name, but about Indians in general — for such a figure of speech would hardly have been used for a river.

The closest American equivalent of Minnesota would probably be “muddy river.”  That would never do! But –sota, the scholars admitted, might mean “cloudy.” Given an inch, the romantics took a mile. “Cloudy” suggested “sky,” and “sky” suggested “blue.” In the end  Minnesota was said to mean “sky-blue water”!

The fanciful interpretation of [a] Florida name supplied perhaps the height of the romantic. Itchepuckesassa, “where there are tobacco blossoms,” was probably only the Seminole’s equivalent of “tobacco field,” but it was rendered: “where the moon puts the colors of the rainbow into the earth and the sun draws them out in the flowers.” …

When such translations were circulated, it is no wonder that people believed Indian names to be sometimes remarkably descriptive, sometimes remarkably fanciful, poetic, and “full of meaning.”

The great majority of our present Indian names of towns are thus not really indigenous. Far even from being old, they are likely to be recent. Ipswich is two hundred years older than nearby Agawam. Troy or Lafayette is likely to be an older name in most states than Powhatan or Hiawatha. The romantics of the mid-century and after applied such names, not the explorers and frontiersmen. (p.275-279, excerpts; emphasis added)

Fascinating. From the Romanticists’ obsession with the “savage and luxuriant” exoticism they projected onto Indians, we get Longfellow’s made-up “Song of Hiawatha” and lots of random, relocated, and often outright false “Indian names” across our country. Not to mention some of the most RIDICULOUS falsehoods about what the words actually mean! As a Minnesotan, I’m glad to learn why I’ve always been confused about the name of our state. And that Florida one — my goodness! Go home, Romanticists — you’re drunk!

On a more serious note, interesting to see that the stereotype about Indian names being overly descriptive and poetic actually comes from white people “improving” translations of ordinary, commonplace Indian words. Just chew on that for a little bit.

Conclusion

Well, I can’t say I’m not glad to move on to the next book. BUT I also must say, I enjoyed learning that tidbit about how Indian names were romanticized and appropriated in the 1800s.

Linguists, if you enjoy an anecdote (or 400) and don’t mind a little dry prose, give this book a try! Perhaps you’ll be more successful than I at finishing it. You can tell me how it ends. 😉

Tune in next time as I FINALLY get to read about the PRAIRIE in Prairie: A Natural History by Candace Savage.