Talk:Two Row Wampum Treaty

Wrong reference link
In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty reference 12 is suppposed to refer to an article in the Amsterdam Volkskrant (that is only accessible to subscribers). However, the actual link is erroneously http://www.colonialsense.com/Regional_History/Journals/Journal_of_Jasper_Danckaerts.php. Engelsman (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Prejudicial Language
I find the use of words like "supposedly" throughout this article to be prejudicial. Georgia Yankee (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

400th Anniversary
I would like to propose a new section on the 400th anniversary events, which were not only festivities but a whole campaign to renew the treaty and expand its recognition on the state, national and international levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bringing this over from our earlier conversation: "Looking more closely at that article, I would imagine that a section headed "400th Anniversary Celebration" would make sense. It should be only a paragraph or two -- I'm thinking something like the opening paragraph of the Atlantic article -- basically saying that it was celebrated with a 13-day trip along the river, stopping for celebrations like (name one or two), and culminating at a meeting at the UN. Then I think you may have content that could be added to the section on Interpretation." The Atlantic article is here. The other good source is from the UN here. It would be good to see if the statement in the "Interpretations" section speculating on the 2013 affect on the treaty can be updated -- did this happen? There is also information in this Washington Post article about conservation efforts and the treaty that could be added to the Interpretation section. Why don't you do a first pass, adding a short bit and I'll pop back to put in some more references and things. (Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tilde's -- see below the edit box -- but (yes, this is confusing) not on the actual article page.) LaMona (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - will add a few paragraphs. I'm checking on the 2013 passport recognition question. I'm told by NOON that Oren Lyons and two other elders were allowed into Holland on their Haudenosaunee passports in September 2013 for an official meeting on the Two Row anniversary, so can note that in the Interpretation. Gorgenkor (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Added those paragraphs, also fixed an error in the name of the Mohawk Nation (Kanien'kehá:ka, not Kanienkeh) in the second paragraph. Looking for a citation on the 2013 passport experience - have email confirmation from Andy Mager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Added a sentence about the successful use of the Haudenosaunee passports by leaders on an official visit to Holland in September '13. Also fixed the bad url in the link to the article in De Volkskrant in that same paragraph.Gorgenkor (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Translation (Dutch>English): Letter to De Volkskrant 5 January 2013 (unabridged)
On January 3, Serv Wiemers wrote a piece in De Volkskrant: "The Indians rely visit the Netherlands' (unfortunately only available on the paid subscriber pages of the newspaper). We then wrote a letter to the editor, an abridged version of which was published on January 5 . For readers of Lower L we have included the full text.

"'On January 3 L. L. Serv Wiemers in 'Opinion & Debate', under the heading 'The Indians rightly rely on the Netherlands', called upon our government to remember its obligations to the Indians, and to allow the Iroquois to enter the country on their Indian passports. According to Wiemers, the obligation to due so was established on April 24, 1613 when the Netherlands became the first country to conclude an agreement on the basis of equality with an Indian nation. Unfortunately, the facts as presented by Wiemers, without mentioning the source, are incorrect. The treaty to which Wiemers refers (and is dated 21 and not on April 24, 1613) was published in 1968 by the American doctor Lawrence G. van Loon in The Indian Historian (pp. 22-26) in an article entitled 'Tawagonshi, the Beginning of the Treaty Era'. The text of the treaty begins with the words 'Here on Tawagonshi ... '. From the beginning there have been serious doubts about the authenticity of the so-called Tawagonshi treaty. In 1987, Charles T. Gehring, William A. Starna & William N. Fenton published an article ('The Tawagonshi Treaty of 1613: The Final Chapter' in: New York History 68 October, 373-393) which, on the basis linguistic and historical research concluded that it is a forgery. Given that Van Loon forged other pieces from the same period, they point to him as the most probable forger. The contract has been circulating since 1959. On September 17, 1959, J. van den Bogaert, former Head of Dutch Information Bureau in New York, sent a transcription of the treaty to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs to allow the authenticity of the text to be reviewed, at request by Richard H. Amerman, editor of the magazine De Halve Maen. Amerman had received the text from Van Loon. The transcript was forwarded to the General State Archivist, Mr. H. Hardenberg, which concluded that it looked like the real thing, but he could not confirm the authenticity if he did not see the original. However, nobody has ever seen the original. The text would have been written in two pieces of skin, but is nowhere is to be found. As far as is known, there is only one, hardly legible copy of the text, which has been been circulated and recopied over and over again. Wiemers claims the Iroquois appealed to the friendship treaty for the first time in 1923. That is incorrect: the Iroquois appealed that year on a charter that was once was given by King George III of England. They could not rely on the Tawagonshi treaty because it had not yet been 'discovered'. Rather, the Iroquois Chiefs showed a contract from the Fourth Russell Tribunal, which was held in Rotterdam in November 1980, on the rights of Indians in North and South America. Without much effect, apart from extensive coverage given by De Waarheid in January 1981. Wiemers reports that that since November 1993 the Mohawk have had to provide a recognized travel documents and that the previously acknowledged passport of the Iroquois League (nb, not a copy of the Tawagonshi Convention) was no longer accepted. That's right, but to paint a true picture, a news story from The Telegraph (September 27, 1993) (later expanded by other newspapers) must be quoted: 'The Mohawk Indians from Canada, who has been fighting for an independent state, have been forced to close their European offices in The Hague. This was agreed after their only diplomat left for an unknown destination. He left a debt of half a million guilders.' In August 2012 an article was published in the American about the fact that the Onondoga, one of the six tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy, wanted to do something big to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Tawagonshi Convention in 2013. The dubious nature of the treaty was again brought up. The Onondoga claim that their oral tradition and a beaded belt (wampum) prove that there is indeed a contract from 1613. Nicoline van der Sijs wrote about this and the forged written in NRC Handelsblad on August 21. Since then we have prepared an article for the Journal of Early American History where we have carefully linguistically analyzed the text of the treaty. Our conclusion is that the text can not possibly have been written in 1613, because it contains approximately 40 anachronisms: word forms, word combinations, or definitions which did not exist in the 17th century. On linguistic grounds it is likely that the text was written in the 20th century. In short, claims or obligations that would result from this text can be safely disregarded by our government. Of course they may for other reasons decide to support the human rights of the Indians. For humane treatment of the Iroquois a falsified treaty is not needed.'"

Major overhaul of Treaty and Wampum Sections
Reworked essentially everything in these sections according to the findings of the various contributors to the Special Issue of Journal of Early American History (volume 3.1, 2013). Eager to hear what you all have to say about the changes Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Bbbb
Bbbb 24.104.191.132 (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)