User talk:71.81.36.249

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Joe Napora: "I never recanted anything. But I have always had doubts about Rafinesque. Anyone would. One of my plans, one that will never be realized, is to do a book on Rafinesque. I see him as a sort of European trickster figure. I also had serious reservations about working with the Walam Olum if it was a part of Delaware sacred ritual. Of course it's not always clear in a tribal culture what is sacred and what is not since there is not that clear (and false) division that we have in western cultures. Joe Bruchac assured me that it wasn't, and he, too, had reservations about Raf. But, if the question is, do I think that the Walam Olum as reported (reconstructed or even constructed) by Rafiinesque to be a viable reflection of Delaware culture, then yes I agree. Did Raf create parts of the WO? Almost certainly. I think that he was trying to impose a syntax where it was not in the originals. I think that people, like Oestreicher, placed way too much emphasis on the narrative structure, which, I believe, Raf put in order. If the question is is the WO as represented by Rafinesque a real translation of original graphics in the order that he received them, that were given him by that Doctor Ward who may or may not have existed, I don't think so. Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs in order to not take a stance one way or the other, but it's a stance that seems besides the point. And I don't think that the point has been clarified. I also question the good faith of Oestreicher. I am familiar with the texts that you mention below, except for The Book of Wild. What does that that have to offer? There is a lot of unacknowledged and seemingly unrecognized prejudice against native American texts. A scholar like Dewdney is rare. One like Oestreicher is common. "

This is proof that Oestreicher was wrong when he stated that napora "recanted" and his statement casts Oest work into doubt. BAD FAITH to continue the conquest against Native Americans.

June 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Walam Olum. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IP changed lead to make it contradict the article Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

: Stop your obstructive actions immediately. The vast majority of information pertaining to the Walam Olum does not square with the contradictory views and personal opinions presented.

Some more of these reliable sources include:

1. American Literature History, Andrew Newman, 2010

"In what is probably the capstone of the Walam Olum’s publication history as an authentic

document—postdating Oestreicher’s debunking—it appears

as the longest selection of the Multilingual Anthology of American

Literature: A Reader of Original Texts with English Translations

(2000), edited by Marc Shell and Werner Sollors

Dennis Tedlock ... comparing it to apparently related forms such as

the Ojibwa Midewin Birchbark scrolls

2. The multilingual Anthology of American Literature by Shell and Sollors, 2000

3. McCutchen's The Red Record, 1993

4. CA Weslager's The Delaware Indians, 1972

Yawn. Andrew Newman agrees with Oestreicher's debunking, for a start, and you changed the lead to contradict the article (eg to remove the bit about it provoking controversy, controversy clearly shown and cited in the article) - vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV - Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves

---