Talk:John Norton (Mohawk chief)

Untitled
Removed vandalism. --Ideogram 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Status of John Norton
Anyone who wants to refer to Norton as a "Mohawk chief" should read the Great Binding Law; he/she will then find how much in error that is. Being a major in thr British army does not make John Norton a chief in the Mohawk nation. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally do not know whether it is right or wrong to refer to Norton as a chief. But I've seen the term used in reports supposedly of Norton's own words. For example, in the Introduction to The journal of Major John Norton, Champlain Society, 1970; pages xxxvii-xxxviii (I think these link to the pages: xxxvii and xxxviii):


 * "After sometime it was proposed to me to accept the situation of Chief which I declined--lest thereby I might be separated from my Western friends--until it was represented to me that the good of the community required I should become a Chief to be enabled to act in a public capacity without incurring blame when I defended their cause, but as it might respect my other concerns I should be at liberty. Thus I complied, and shortly after disputes running high concerning the land, I resigned my place in the Indian Department [of the British Army]."


 * "Information which he later gave during a visit to Cambridge confirms the date (approximately 1799) and the name: 'Teyoninhokawawen signifies open door importing, frankness & an open heart: this was not his original name but was given him 6 years ago when he was appointed a chief.'"


 * If I understand right these are Norton's own words as reported in the Headley Account. I don't know whether this is a trustworthy source or not. The Champlain Society's Introduction to The Journal seems well researched and sourced, but it was published in 1970. Perhaps it contains errors that have since been corrected.


 * When you say "Great Binding Law" do you mean the Great Law of Peace, like as on this webpage? Pfly (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to jump in here with my perspective. First of all, yes, "The Great Binding Law", "Gawyehnehshehgowa", "Gayanashagowa", "The Great Law of Peace" and several others, are all synonymous terms. My objection to the renaming of the article is basically a technical one, but I believe it's supportable, based on Wiki policy. Chuck Hamilton's position appears to me to be based on his own definition of what constitutes a "chief" in this context and his personal interpretation of Gawyehnehshehgowa, based on what appears to me to be "original research", at least in the sense that what they're asserting isn't supported with accompanying references; in fact the opposite is true, references already existing in the article actually directly contradict what Hamilton is contending. Even if I'd personally agree that Hamilton's position has a small amount of technical merit, what's not being addressed here is the issue that revolves around the idea that the word "chief" definitely has a number of connotations within the context of Haudenosaunee tradition, something that Hamilton fails to point out in the claim being made. Within the context of Gawyehnehshehgowa there are categories of leadership referred to as "Pine Tree Chiefs" and "War Chiefs",'appointed', but validly designated positions within Haudenosaunee law. Norton lays an easily documented and supportable historical claim to either of these titles, the references that Pfly is offering are only a small example of what's out there to support this contention. Because this is controversial subject, rather than see this degrade into a debate regarding the finer points of the traditional Haudenosaunee legal system (not to mention the nuances of a 200 year old Six Nations domestic political argument) I'd suggest that before "chief" is removed from the title of this article, that references be provided to refute (or at least qualify) the references already provided, as per encyclopedia policy. A referenced mention in the body of the article itself would help as well. It's interesting to take note that there are individuals who deny that Joseph Brant is eligible to claim the title of "Chief", based on their interpretation of Gawyehnehshehgowa. I'm going to "Be Bold" and once again revert the title back because I genuinely believe that unsupported controversial claims must at least be supported by reliable sources before inclusion in Wikipedia. As a courtesy, please do not revert again until we debate this issue here. How about "John Norton (War Chief)"? Cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Great Binding Law" is the name under which I was introduced to it. That's the English phrase former Head Chief Arnold General used to use also. That doesn't mean that "Great Law of Peace" is wrong, though.

Norton was a British agent, the late 18th, early 19th equivalent of U.S. Special Forces or CIA paramilitary operative deep behind enemy lines. The Mohawk were British allies, so that was good cover. He carried the journal with him openly, so he wouldn't have been writing that spying is what he was doing. Remember, this was in 1809-1810, in the tense years leading up to the War of 1812. A Cherokee father who emigrated to Scotland? No way. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you're attempting to present a highly controversial and completely unreferenced personal theory here. Please provide reliable references in support of what you're contending before changing the content or title of the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it matter much how the name is disambiguated? The qualifier text serves merely to distinguish this page from other John Nortons. It doesn't mean much. WP:QUALIFIER says "try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand", which supports using (Mohawk). But it also says, "It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach). This sounds neither for or against (Mohawk chief) or (Mohawk), since Mohawk is akin to "affiliation" and (Mohawk chief) is not overly-long like (Baseball player and coach). It seems to me that even if Chuck Hamilton's objection is baseless (and I'm not saying it is), there is nothing wrong with using some word other than chief. Perhaps (Mohawk leader)? In any case, the issue of whether John Norton was or wasn't a chief should be addressed in the article's text, not its disambiguation qualifier, no? Pfly (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying makes perfect sense provided that the proposed new name is in fact a refinement of the existing one, that it improves the disambiguation involved. In my opinion, this isn't the case here. As I've mentioned before, I believe that an assertion is being made by an editor, that the existing title is "non-factual" and thus must be changed. I contend that when any change in the encyclopedia is made (including titling) that the onus is on the contributing editor to explain why and to provide support for their reasoning through reliable references if they are challenged; especially when the change is potentially controversial and it's proposed without citations to back it up. Someone else pointed out that in this particular case, because of the size of the Norton family itself (many of whom continue in positions of leadership within Mohawk society to this day) that it is potentially desirable to disambiguate a common name like "John Norton" beyond "Mohawk" alone, just to keep things straight for potential future new entries in the encyclopedia stemming from the Mohawk nation. I'll be back later with some references and further comments. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indians, in any case, didn't have "chiefs". What I say on this page is not the same as what the article says.  If I had supporting material about what I said about Norton above, it would be in the article.  Now, however, that we have dealt with that, the burden is upon whomever wishes to call John Norton a "Mohawk" chief that he was such a thing.  After all, it's not like we're dealing with the Mohicans; there's plenty of Mohawk still around and you can't just dismiss what they might have to say, whether they are inclined to offer something or not.  Calling a historical figure a "Mohawk chief" without any kind of independent support is the sam as giving them the finger. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence independent of John Norton's journal that refers to him as a "Mohawk chief". Unless such is produced, I will move it again. I'll wait a week. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an article about John Norton and his claims in the Journal of Cherokee Studies. I'll review it and quote relevant portions here. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a curiously black and white argument, although that's possibly the point i.e. Norton's relationship with the Mohawk of the Grand River seems rather fluid. The title could be taken to imply that Norton was a Mohawk but Norton himself always claimed to be a Cherokee adopted by a Scots military man as an orphan along with his sister. In the annals of the War of 1812 Norton appears mainly as a leader of western - relative to Upper Canada, e.g. Delaware, Wendat, Potowatomi, etc. - rather than Mohawk where John Brant is typically presented as a Mohawk leader in the record (the best detail of the Battle of Queenston Heights describes Brant's contingent and Norton's contingent as separate entities). When Norton refers to western friends, it's unclear whether he meant displaced Cherokee (less likely) or the collective of natives from the area of western Lake Erie and Lake Huron with whom he was associated during the war of 1812. The timeline of Norton's residence (for lack of a better term) among the nations of the Grand River is difficult to establish precisely. His seemingly close relationship with Joseph Brant may give too much emphasis to the Mohawk description; in that context, 'fac totem' might be a more accurate description. Much of Norton's history is nearly invisible, particularly his early days in North America as a British soldier and his latter years putatively in the US southwest. At least, the poor quality of Norton's translation of New Testament into Mohawk suggests he was not likely Mohawk while a competent philological study might add credence to Cherokee heritage. 'Chiefliness' (for want of a better attribution) seems to be more of Euro-american preoccupation (possibly the rank came with epaulettes!?) when native leadership responsibilities seemed to be diverse, pragmatic and/or traditional, long-term or temporary, honorific, etc i.e. not being capable of being reduced to a simple concept. During the American War of Independence, several Mohawk leaders - chiefs in Euro parlance -, Joseph Brant included, had a leadership role (from the British perspective); however, as British leaders repeatedly reported, nothing ever happened without Molly Brant's input (the Euro misogynist viewpoint makes this aspect of 'chiefliness' incomprehensible). One unresolved issue is, to what extent should one rely on Norton's journal? In this discussion this seems to run from a little to a lot but with little justification for either point of view. There seems to be little interest in Norton's other writing in the form of missives to the colonial government which might shed more light. Gerald RW (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Since this article takes what Norton wrote in his journal at face value with no supporting material, there is clearly a problem with NPOV. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "NPOV" tag placement is completely your call, I'm hoping to get consensus. I have to admit though, you've kind of lost me. I'm not clear on what you mean by the article taking Norton's journal "at face value with no supporting material". The current external links section, which is presently as close to "referencing" as this article gets, (mea culpa) contains secondary sources. Carl F. Klinck's article in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography isn't a primary source, neither is the linked introduction to Norton's journal that Klinck wrote in the Champlain series book linked at the bottom of the section. Please advise. I'm going to remove the "factual" template that I placed yesterday, it seems redundant to me having them both up there. I've made some reference notes regarding all this, that I'll post here on the talk page for everyone's perusal later today or tomorrow. Thank you for your show of "good faith" in leaving the original article title in place until consensus is reached, but remember, we try to arrive at conclusions here based on a cooperative model, "ultimatums" regarding time frames for purposed changes are generally regarded as unnecessarily confrontational or even provocative in these contexts. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the external source is for one point, about Norton's alleged paternity, and that is based on his account. That's why the NPOV tag.  One day this week, I'll look up that article on Norton in the Journal of Cherokee Studies. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about the "external links" that appear at the bottom of the article, beyond the lone citation in the "references" section, the article appears to be reliant on the information available through them as its supporting basis. In order to refute that Norton was not a "chief", you should try and dig up references that undermine Klinck's (and others) contention that he was, in my opinion that's the core of your argument in need of support in the face of a large number of references that are available to the contrary. You also seem to be insinuating that Norton was not a "Mohawk", that his adoption was somehow not legitimate, or that he wasn't recognized amongst Grand River Iroquois of the early 19th century as a Mohawk. Again, it's possible to locate references that touch on that, but in my experience, they're in the extreme minority and are almost without exception rooted in claims made by his early 19th century political opponents within the Iroquois community in southern Ontario. In my experience, 20th and early 21st century Iroquoian scholars (both native and non-native) would strongly argue the reverse. The "proof" is in the citations as always on Wiki; I'll be back later with mine. Good luck and happy editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have no doubt that his Mohawk adoption was genuine, just his supposed Cherokee genetic alleles. Sam Houston was a genuinely adopted Cherokee, though he wasn't a chief even though his adopted father was, and William Holland Thomas was a genuinely adopted Cherokee who became a chief.  Blue Jacket didn't have a quark of Shawnee blood and he is one of the most famous Shawnee ever; Simon Girty was an adopted Seneca.  Thomas, Blue Jacket, and Girty became chiefs because of their abilities, not because of who their adopted father was.  Sure, Norton led Mohawks inton battle, as soldiers led by a British officer.  That doesn't mean he was a chief. I'd love to see something that indicates he was, but so far his journal is the only thing that says that, or sources derived directly from it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Within the Iroquois tradition, an appointment as a "Pine Tree Chief" has nothing to do with your ethnicity or who you happen to be related to, neither does someone's designation as a "War Chief". Both of these positions are granted on the basis of the communities recognition as a whole of an particular individual's high level of skills. I'm not familiar with Cherokee tradition, but here in southern Ontario within the Confederacy, men don't follow a War Chief into battle just because they're "told" to, they join him voluntarily because of their prior recognition of his abilities and knowledge. (see 'Leadership in the Northeastern Woodlands of North America', William N. Fenton; American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1, The History of American Indian Leadership (Winter, 1986), pp. 21-45 for instance). I've taken the liberty of adding an appropriate reference in support of my contention that Norton was a chief to the article and on that basis I'd like to request that you remove the neutrality template you placed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the article specifically address Norton's status within the Confederacy?


 * Several of the Loyalists were counted as "chiefs" among the Cherokee during the Chickamauga wars, some were even given Cherokee names (John McDonald, for one, John Rogers was another). Several of those sat in councils as full members. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the link that I provided as a reference today for the article, you'll discover that Norton's rank as a chief is confirmed in a reliable secondary sourced material by Klinck in his introduction to Norton's journal. Even if you personally dispute (without evidence) that Norton was a chief because you have "problems" with the primary source, (ie the contents of the transcription of his journal that Klinck published) you're ignoring the fact that the reference I provided isn't directly citing the journal, it points to Klinck's interpretative affirmation that Norton was a chief in a secondary source, the intro. As I mentioned yesterday, unless you can undermine (or demolish) Klinck's authority as a reliable Norton source specialist, no easy task there, your own position is hopelessly undermined. You have already acknowledged, that you aren't challenging Norton's adoption as a Mohawk and a reliable secondary source has been provided to point to him being a chief in the article, what's left? Remember, in Wiki, our own opinions don't amount to much, you must back up claims with specific citations, arguments from analogy with other native nations and personal perspectives can't be used without support here. The citation I passed on to you here today on the talk page was to attempt to provide you with context on traditional native leadership patterns in this part of North America, a trip to any half decent research library (or university libary online access) will get you to it. Another thing to keep in mind, is that not all North American cultural patterns follow along exactly with each other, your examples from more southerly groups may or may not be of use, including instances where the two cultures are fairly closely related like the Cherokee and Iroquois. Please advise. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources that say Norton was a chief. A quick search in Google Books turns up many examples. It is possible they all rely on Norton's journal. But even if they do it does not matter for this page. Wikipedia is about compiling information from secondary rather than primary sources. The relevant policy is here: WP:PSTS. There are a great many reliable secondary sources that call Norton a chief. That is what matters. I have not yet found a source that disputes it. If one is found it ought to be included here, by all means. Pfly (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The logic of that is like it would be taking William Walker's (19th century filibusterer) word about his actions based on secondary sources that are in turn based on his autobiography.


 * But since Klinck and Talman provided corroborating info in their intro, which I must confess I hadn't read before now, just skipped to the good parts, I'll remove the tag. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Image(s)
There is something of a constructed nature to the commonly accepted images. In the case of Norton and Brant, while in England wealthy individuals contracted respected artists to produce portraits of these individuals. Among other things, there seems to be throw-back aspect referring back to famous/popular portraits of the 'Four Kings' from a previous generation. Both Norton and Brant alluded to having to 'assemble' an outfit for the occasion. Even back in the day the concept of 'the dead indian', as Joseph Boyden terms it, was popular. Does anyone have an opinion as to which portraits (if any) are original/from life? Gerald RW (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)