Letters to the Editor

The Tonemah Statement

TO THE EDITOR:

I would like to thank Stuart Tonemah for his compellingly levelheaded report on the College's progress in its programs relating to Native American students, and especially for his unhysterical statements regarding the Indian Symbol. How this Symbol affair has dragged on! From the patronizing, white-middleclass, "Some of My Best Friends Are Indians" hogwash, to the even more distressing, "I have always identified with the Symbol's strength/pride/honor/etc." pathology, with its intimations of overcompensating Machismo (I mean, how secure can your sexual identity be, if it derives reinforcement from a cartoon?), we have had months and months of tepid snivelling and petulance in the Letters pages.

The point you seem to be avoiding, my Green brothers, is this: That no symbol which purportsto represent a community of fellowship has anyworth if it offends a single member of that community. Ours is not a political body; the matter is not up for majority rule. Rather, the Dartmouth brotherhood is (or should be) a community of the spirit, in which the pride and well-being of each is the concern of all. Nor is the Indian Symbol a question of institutional policy, in which we might rightly expect majority opinion to hold sway. Rather, it is a question of identity, all of our identity, all together.

Or do I oversimplify? Idealize? Is all the proud trumpeting of the Dartmouth Community which has swirled about this issue just so much pious, hypocritical, empty crap? If so, let us admit it; let's acknowledge that some of us are more equal in the Dartmouth Community than others. (And we know who we are, don't we Mr. Briggs? Mr. Loeb?) Let's get on with it; use our influence; withhold our money; stamp our feet!

Men of Dartmouth: GROW UP!

Cambridge, Mass.

TO THE EDITOR:

Mr. Tonemah is to be congratulated on his dignified and eloquent plea for the "Native American" cause. But it did not close the issue, for we are dealing here with something called tradition. Heaven knows tradition, like an old soldier, never dies; it can only fade away - through neglect. The abolition of the Indian symbol has only served to kindle love and devotion for the object which generations of Dartmouth men had worn in jest.

A symbol is what we make of it; it also helps us to be what we want. One of the unfortunate by products of the current controversy is, for the first time, anti-Indian sentiment seems to be surfacing. This is alarming and it is entirely out of character with the Dartmouth we all knew.

It may not be an idle exercise in history to recall that Eleazar Wheelock did not go to the "wilderness" (with or without 500 gallons of New England rum) to wage a war on "Native Americans." What he set out to do was exactly the opposite: to make peace with them and to teach them skills necessary for survival in the new civilization. Samson Occom, one of his early students, went on to become a lawyer and spent the rest of his life defending the rights of his tribesmen. Had there been more Occoms, the history of American Indians would have been different.

Granted the "Native Americans" might have genuine grievances against immigrant America. But no history, however deplorable in retrospect, is without a redemptive feature. Dartmouth may well take pride in the fact that it has, from the time of its founder, extended a hand of friendship to "Native Americans."

Let the Indian symbol stand for that. There is no reason to abolish it now any more than there is to change the wording of the College Charter, according to which Dartmouth was established to educate Indian youth and "others." Let's go on with the job!

Purchase, N. Y.

More on Indians

TO THE EDITOR

As a trustee of a small coeducational college in rural upstate New York for the past eight years I am well aware of the many and various pressures imposed by many groups espousing certain points and issues upon higher education administrators and governing boards. For those of us who have no policy-making responsibilities at Dartmouth, it is tempting to take issue with and criticize many recent policy decisions.

Having said this, I have to admit that I cannot resist the temptation to question the recent decisions regarding Dartmouth's long-standing association and concern with and . for the American Indian. Living about 20 miles from the St. Regis Indian Reservation in Upstate New York and having a few friends there of all ages, I suggest a reexamination of Dartmouth's policy in this regard particularly - do the majority of Indians want to be called "Native Americans," do they want to be segregated by establishment of "cultural centers" for them? Do they really object to the Dartmouth symbolism and the Dartmouth cheers?

I am sure my questions have not disguised my own feelings and they were not meant to. My findings reveal that most American Indians are proud to be called and known as Indians and do not object to the use of Indian symbols so long as it does not hold them up to ridicule or make them the butts of racial off-color jokes.

Malone, N. Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

Ralph Walkingstick '18 is often cited as one of the exemplary indians to have attended Dartmouth. And indeed, so he is. But most often he is remembered for the indian yells he contributed. Which makes my addendum to his story good. For "Stick" was dealing in contraband.

The Oklahoma indians, from statehood in 1907 had been forbidden to indulge in all their old tribal and traditional gatherings and ceremonies. It was unsettling to the new white population. And defying that ban was the favorite sport of all the lively young bucks of that period. It was natural then for "Stick" when he got to Dartmouth to continue the mischief. Getting a couple thousand young off-spring of the eastern establishment to lustily shouting out our "verboten" rallying cries unboubtedly delighted him.

World War I, of course, doused all this. The indian population up to then had remained dominant. And thus a force, though they all were "subjugated." Then came the oil boom and thousands of new people. The indians were swamped from there on. And historical aspects like this get lost.

But quite a piece could be written around it. Although, what ought to be done one day is to put it all on tape, or sound film. You folks, naturally, corrupted the tempo of the yells. And their precise meanings here and there would be a delight too. And wah-hoo-wah has no connotation whatsoever of anything, in sioux, or any other indian tongue I know of.

Walkingstick and I are Oklahoma cherokees, as distinguished from Frell Owl '28, a North Carolina cherokee.

Staten Island, N.Y.

TO THE EDITOR:

After reading the long letter in your last issue from one of the new Indian chiefs at Dartmouth, 1 suddenly realized that I am a Non-Native American. I hope, that the College will soon institute studies so that our status can be further explored and suitable quarters provided so that those of our group in residence may have a place to contemplate our unfortunate position.

Better give up on the "Wah-Hoo-Wah," fellows. There isn't much left to cheer about.

Tequesta, Fla.

The Sock 'em Occoms?

TO THE EDITOR:

A possible solution to the ridiculous decision to obliterate the Dartmouth Indian symbol may be found in the enclosed editorial published in the February 16, 1973 edition of the Sarasota Heraldtribune:

SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM

To paraphrase Daniel Webster, "She is only a small school but there are those who worry about her" - meaning Dartmouth College, of course, of which Webster was one of the most illustrious alumni.

What has been worrying alumni recently has been the timidity of their alma mater, in the face of a small but ferocious knot of so-called Native Americans who do not wish Dartmouth to be called "Indians" any more in spite of the fact that it was founded in 1770 as an Indian school.

Now, in a Dartmouth Bulletin, there appears a light sublime that may solve the whole problem (it won't undo Dartmouth's new coeducation, but there seems little inclination among young male undergraduates to undo that).

The Bulletin Says: "It probably is not an exaggeration to say that Dartmouth owes its existence to the fund-raising work of Samson Occum, who collected 11,000 pounds in England and Scotland during the 1760s for a wilderness school for the 'education & instruction of Youth of the Indian tribes ... and also of English Youth and any others.' Occum was a Mohegan.

"Now, a couple of centuries later, the Class of 1911 has paid part of Dartmouth's debt by creating a permanent fund to provide financial assistance to one or more Native American undergraduates who will be known as Samson Occum Scholars." ,

Well, good for 1911, of course, and the scholars. Dartmouth has made specif arrangements for other Indian students for many years, trying vaguely to live up to its former nickname; the alternate, "Big Green," is just, after all, a large color.

But in view of the importance to this institution of an early Indian missionary, a solution to the present unhappy situation occurs which we cheerfully pass along north: How about the "Dartmouth Occums"?

Among other things, it lends itself readily to what has generally been believed to be the Dartmouth character for the purposes of cheers, songs and other ceremonials: "Rock 'em, Sock 'em, Go, you Occums!"

And, surely, the Natives wouldn't get restless about that.

Sarasota, Fla.

Dartmouth Alumni Trust

TO THE EDITOR:

Having read the ad on page 14 of the February 1973 issue and your attempted disclaimer on page 12, I am shocked and horrified that the editors would permit the placement and publication of the ad if the Trustees had failed to grant these gentlemen the right to use the name of the College.

I am even more disturbed that these so-called loyal alumni would form such an organization without the prior approval of the College.

As an attorney-at-law, I am keenly aware of the problems involved. I seriously question how the organization could obtain charitable status if they choose to discriminate in favor of those aspects of the college program that they deem "retain the traditional Dartmouth spirit."

I would hope that before approving the ad, you chose to request a copy of their federal tax approval letter granting charitable status.

Accordingly, I hope that these comments prompt a full disclosure by you of your efforts to determine the credentials of the organization behind the ad.

There is enough divisiveness abroad in our country - we do not need more in the College. Nor do we need "charitable" organizations of alumni who choose to dispense their largesse only when the College does their bidding. To encourage and support such activities can only serve to harm the College.

Plainfield,N.J.

Editor's Note: The Dartmouth Alumni Trust is legally incorporated in the State of Massachusetts and its application for tax-exempt status has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service. These facts were established prior to acceptance of its advertisement.

Obvious Mistake

TO THE EDITOR:

When I try to reassure some of my more depressed contemporaries that though students may frequently be weird looking, they are still seeking and profiting from a good education, I am apt to be supported by the intellectual tone of the Alumni Magazine, including the "Undergraduate Chair." I am therefore saddened to see that the current author of that department has used and that you have not caught the extremely odd usage for the word "obviated." I fear you will have to watch even more carefully if you wish to continue successfully to defend our reputation. Better luck next time.

Norwich, Vt.

Editor's Note: Miss Blake has cause for sadness, but only temporarily, we think. The usage in question was: "These varied fraternityadministration clashes obviated a subtle change in the atmosphere of Dartmouth ..." The word should, of course, have been "obviousated" or even "obviousized."

Optical Confusion

TO THE EDITOR:

Abolishment of ROTC, coeducation, dropped Indian symbols, no more Carnival queens - all these and more I took in stride with nary a complaint. But when the type size in the Alumni Magazine shrinks to make me feel I need bifocals at 35, I gripe.

As near as I can calculate, February's tinytype gets 15% more words per page. Please either cut down the quantity by 15% or raise the subscription price by 15% — just make the magazine legi- ble to us 20/20 guys again.

San Francisco, N. Y.

Editor's Note: With the February issue, the Alumni Magazine (victim of the machine age) went over to photo-composition. Type size has not been reduced, but tighter setting of lines does reduce readibility, for the editor as well as Mr. Feuchter, and we are trying to work things out with the printer so as to get back to where we were before February.

The Wrong Muller

TO THE EDITOR:

Professor Stinson in his article "Religion and the Biological Revolution" (January 1973) refers to "the late Herbert Muller, the renowned geneticist at Indiana University." He doubtless meant to refer to the late Hermann Muller. There is a professor Herbert J. Muller, also at Indiana University, who, I am sure, is still very much alive. He is a professor of literature and history and has written a number of remarkable books (the best known is Uses of the Past) which deserve greater recognition than they have received.

N. Stonington, Conn.