Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
-
In reply to:
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
Gary Cox 7/17/01
Thank you.I believe most of us are familiar with the Jacobus article, but it falls far short
of “proof positive.”It falls short of good, honest research as well.Jacobus claimed to be
unbiased, but the text itself clearly reveals his prejudices.Let’s look at a few quotations
from the article:
“Any tradition passing by word of mouth through several generations requires
verification from contemporary record sources before it can safely be accepted.”That is
true, but oral history in some cultures, including Native American, are a necessary form
of record-keeping and cannot be shrugged off as lightly as hand-me-down stories from
Grandma.Such history is not just heard and casually repeated, but carefully memorized
by each generation.Franklin Bearse’s minute notation of fractional degrees of Native
American blood in each generation lends his account an air of truth.Degree of blood is
vitally important to Native Americans, as that is the way the white man’s government
decides who is and who is not legally a Native American, a decision that has a profound
impact on the individual’s whole life.
“To suppose that a Gypsy, a deported criminal, and the husband of an Indian, would have
enjoyed such standing in a Puritan community is absurd.”Augustine Bearse was said to
have been deported because he was a Rom, not because he was a criminal.But even
deported “criminals” -- a term applied even in trivial offenses in those days -- did find
acceptance in all of the New World colonies so long as they builthonest, productive
lives there.As for “Gypsies” and “husband(s) of Indian(s),” witness the so-called Black
Dutch of New York and Pennsylvania.Around the turn of the 17th Century -- not many
years after Augustine Bearse’s arrival -- these German Rom did find acceptance in
staunchly Protestant communities, and many of them married Native Americans.Some
resumed their traditional Rom ways in the New World, but some settled down as artisans
and farmers and were assimilated into their communities.Interestingly, among the
German names these Rom adopted most frequently were Rau and May, two names that
appear in Franklin E. Bearse’s history of his family.
“The birth of Martha Taylor on a precise date in 1650 has appeared in print, presumably
from the Yarmouth records”In other places, Jacobus acknowledges that errors may
occur in print.In this case, since it supports his argument, he cites the fact of publication
as proof even though he does not know the original source.
“It is almost certain that Ruth was born in England.”Proof positive requires more than
“almost” certain.
“The story therefore is that Josiah Bearse either committed a bigamous marriage, or kept
a concubine, and that in spite of this his legal wife accompanied him on his removal to
Connecticut. Such a story cannot be accepted, and is seemingly based on an error, either
in the book by Otis, or in an original record at Barnstable.”The human spirit can be
generous as well as mean.The history of that period (and all others) records many
instances where a legal wife remained with her husband despite his relations with other
women.And this is a fine example of Jacobus’ selective judgment:because the record
does not agree with his preconceived conclusion, an error must have appeared either in a
printed book or in the original records which, in other instances, Jacobus takes as gospel.
“It is not our province to inquire why a later descendant prefers to disown Zerviah
Newcomb in favor of an alleged Indian concubine, and to besmirch the character of
Josiah Bearse by making bastards of all his children.”Here is the pinnacle of Jacobus’
prejudice and academic charlatinism.His choice of pejorative words in this passage
“concubine -- besmirch -- bastards” reveals that his personal moral feelings were driving
his pen.And the question he sidesteps, “why,” is precisely the question on which he
should have focused.Franklin Bearse’s undisputed purpose in transcribing this oral
history was to prove his Native American status.His claim ofMary Hyanno’s Native
American identity contributed to that in a small way, but why then bring in the story of
Augustine Bearse’s Rom heritage?It adds nothing whatsoever to the Native American
claim.The most obvious conclusion is that, whether it was true or not, it was indeed part
of the oral history memorized through generations.
“Since the alleged claims of Indian marriage and descent in the second and third
generations have been exposed as false and unacceptable, we have a legitimate basis for
the deduction that the statement about Austin Bearse, the first settler, is of the same
unsubstantial texture.”Jacobus showed that the claims were “unacceptable” to him, but
he did not “prove” they were false.He merely asserted they were false and backed his
assertion with a subjective choice ofsource materials -- printed accounts and original
records that supported his view were cited without question, while those that did not fit
his picture were rejected out of hand.Jacobus’ article must be analyzed and questioned
as carefully as Franklin Bearse’s history.
Please, let us have the “proof positive” and not just polemics.
More Replies:
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
Traci Rorden 8/28/01
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
Barbara Iversen 1/29/02
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
Gary Cox 11/23/02
-
Re: My choice too
dean paddock 12/18/07
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
Barbara Iversen 11/23/02
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
Gary Cox 11/23/02
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
-
Re: My choice too
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
Gary Cox 11/23/02
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno
-
Re: Myth of Mary Hyanno