Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong

James W. Loewen taught race relations at the University of Vermont.

Excerpt

THE FAR WEST

1. The Tallest Mountain ? The Silliest Naming

ALASKA Denali (Mt. McKinley)

Since people probably reached Alaska before any other part of the WesternHemisphere, they probably named North America’s tallest mountain thousandsof years ago. They didn’t call it Mt. McKinley.

    Replacing Native American names with those of European Americans isa form of cultural imperialism. The practice declares that the new rulers ofthe landscape can afford to ignore what Native names mean and connote infavor of new names that typically have no relation to what is named.

    Low-profile conflicts have raged for many years between those who wantto change the names of localities and geographic features back to their originalNative names, and those who want them named for European Americanpeople, towns, or words. To some degree this is a contest between NativeAmericans and European Americans, but European Americans are usuallyfound on both sides of the arguments. The battles might also be characterizedas between traditionalists and those desiring change, except that bothparties claim to have tradition on their side. Denali, or Mt. McKinley,dramatically embodies these disputes about names all across America, not onlybecause it is such a dramatic place but also because the controversy atDenali has gone on for more than twenty-five years.

    William A. Dickey renamed the peak, the tallest point in North America,Mt. McKinley in 1896. Why he got to name it is hard to fathom. Dickeyhad come to Alaska spurred by discoveries of gold in Cook Inlet. With threecompanions he made it to Talkeetna and saw Denali, “the great one” in thelanguage of the nearby Tanaina Indians. According to C. H. Merriam, testifyingbefore the U.S. Geographical Board in 1917, “The right of the discovererto name geographical features has never been questioned,” but Dickeywas no discoverer. Native people had discovered the mountain thousands ofyears earlier. Even if only white people “discover,” Russians saw it inthe 1770s or 1780s and named it Bulshaia Gora, “big mountain.” Even if onlyEnglish-speaking white people “discover,” George Vancouver saw Denali in1794. Dickey was not even the first white American to see it; otherAmericans had preceded him by a quarter century.

    Dickey had no serious reason to name the mountain as he did. WilliamMcKinley had not yet been martyred when he received the honor; indeedhe had not even been elected president. Nor had McKinley ever been to themountain, or even to Alaska. William Dickey favored conservative fiscalpolicies, while most people in the West wanted to expand the amount ofmoney in circulation by minting more silver coins and certificates. Dickeywas irritated by arguments he had lost with “free silver” partisans on histrip and decided to retaliate by naming Denali after the gold standardchampion.

    “The original naming was little more than a joke,” according to GeorgeR. Stewart, author of American Place-Names. From the first, some peoplepreferred the Native name, and Dickey’s frivolous reason for choosingMcKinley gave them ammunition. Nevertheless, probably because he wroteabout his trip in the New York Sun, Dickey’s choice began to catch on.McKinley defeated William Jennings Bryan in 1896, so at least the mountainturned out to be named after a president, and, when McKinley was shot inBuffalo in 1901, after a martyred president.

    Today however, many Americans consider the Native name more melodiousand object to “McKinley” on aesthetic grounds?as if the MississippiRiver had been renamed for, say, Zachary Taylor. Others support Nativeefforts to gain more acceptance, including better recognition on the landscape.”It’s time we listened to the Native people of Alaska,” declared SenatorTed Stevens of Alaska in 1991. “This mountain is the largest in NorthAmerica. It was named by the Natives long before we arrived.”

    Nationally, a lone congressman from Ohio prevents the renaming of themountain. In 1975, Rep. Ralph Regula from Canton, William McKinley’shometown, blocked a compromise proposed by the Alaska legislature toname the mountain Denali and leave the national park surrounding it namedfor McKinley. Five years later the National Park Service agreed to a compromiseRegula couldn’t block: it changed the name of Mt. McKinley NationalPark to Denali National Park, but the mountain stayed Mt. McKinley. Thisresolution proved unstable, however. Finding its Native lobby more persuasivethan Ohio’s McKinley lobby, Alaska changed its name for the mountainto Denali, relegating the 25th president to the parenthetical statement, “(alsoknown as Mt. McKinley).” Regula has found a way to block any change onthe national level, however. His aide told me, “The Board of GeographicNames won’t change names so long as legislation on the subject is pending.Congressman Regula always has legislation pending.” The legislation nevergets anywhere, but it suffices to prevent action by the board.

    When the Board on Geographic Names was considering a proposal torename the mountain in 1977, Congressman Regula testified, “This actionwould be an insult to the memory of President McKinley and to the peopleof my district and the nation who are so proud of his heritage.” But Americansaren’t! That’s the problem: most Americans don’t rank William McKinleyvery high in the pantheon of presidents. They remember him if at all as acreation of political boss Mark Hanna, beholden to big business, andaddicted to high tariffs. He also got us bogged down in a seemingly endlesscolonial war in the Philippines (25). Such facts do not deter Regula, whoportrays McKinley as “a champion of the working class” and credits himfor “settlement of the long-standing Spanish-American conflict.”

    Naturally the congressman’s office claims higher principles, not merelocal pride, motivate Regula to block renaming the mountain. “The congressmanfeels that a lot of money goes into maps,” emphasized aide BarbaraWainman, “and names shouldn’t be changed lightly.” Moreover, shenoted, if they win Denali, Native groups will want to change other names.

    On that last point Wainman is right. Entry 24 tells that Native groupsdo want to change other names all across America. And American Indiansare winning some of these battles. Memphis renamed DeSoto Bluff “ChickasawHeritage State Park.” “Custer’s Last Stand” is now “The Little BighornBattlefield.” Also, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names adopted a policy in1990 to favor names derived from American Indian, Inuit, and Polynesianlanguages. Eventually Natives will outlast Ralph Regula and rename Denali.

* * *

2. King Kamehameha I, The Roman!

HAWAII Honolulu

Kamehameha I was an extraordinary leader. Born on the Big Island ofHawaii about 1758, he died on Kona in 1819. Using his intelligence,courage in man-to-man combat, his own genealogy (very important in traditionalHawaiian culture), diplomacy, Western arms, and capable advisorsand underlings, Kamehameha conquered all of the Big Island of Hawaii inthe 1790s. He then moved northwest, conquering Maui, Lanai, Molokai,and Oahu. Finally in 1810 by negotiation he was acknowledged king overKauai, unifying all the Hawaiian Islands for the first time.

    Kamehameha’s imposing statue stands across South King Street fromIolani Palace in Honolulu. An identical statue stands near his birthplace. Athird statue, made from molds prepared from the one in Honolulu, standsindoors in the United States Capitol. Eight and one half feet tall with goldrobes, it is “easily the most striking in the National Statuary Hall” in thewords of the guidebook for the collection. Kamehameha’s likeness can thusbe seen on the landscape at more places than that of any other Asian orPacific Island American.

    Only it’s not Kamehameha’s likeness.

    The statue had its origin in 1878 when Walter Gibson, a non-Polynesianmember of the Hawaiian legislature, proposed it in connection with thecentennial of Hawaii’s “discovery” by Captain James Cook. This had a certainlogic, since Kamehameha was among the many Hawaiians who had metCook during his two visits to the islands before he was killed there. Thelegislature appropriated $10,000 for the project and made Gibson chair of themonument committee, which included native Hawaiian members but soonbecame a one-man show. Gibson chose Thomas R. Gould, a Boston sculptor,to craft the work.

    Gould never went to Hawaii and seems never to have learned whatKamehameha looked like, although several portraits did exist, painted atdifferent points in his life. Photographs of native Hawaiians were mailed toGould as he worked on the statue in Florence, Italy, but they did not makemuch impact either. Gould was in Italy, so he made the statue look like anItalian with a long Roman cloak. According to travel writer Hal Glatzer,”The statue is essentially that of a Roman general with dark skin. The featuresare more Caucasian than Polynesian. The pose, with the right armextended, palm upturned, is `supposed’ to be a welcoming aloha gesture.But it is based on the Roman pose with an upright staff or spear.”

    David Kalakaua had become king of Hawaii in 1874, and in 1882Hawaiians finished the Iolani Palace for him. The statue of King KamehamehaI, not ready for the 1878-79 centennial of Cook’s visit, was scheduledas part of Kalakaua’s belated coronation festivities connected withopening the new palace in 1883. Cast in bronze in Paris and then shipped toHawaii via Cape Horn, the statue was lost before rounding the Cape whenthe ship wrecked at the Falkland Islands.

    The Hawaiians had insured the statue for $12,000, and with that moneythey ordered another one. Gould made a copy and sent it off to Hawaii.Before it could get there, however, a ship came into Hawaii with the original!Enterprising Falkland Islanders had recovered it from the sea and sold itto the captain for $500. He sold it to Gibson for $875. Now Hawaii hadtwo statues, and neither looked anything like Kamehameha. The reorderedstatue was placed in front of Iolani Palace, while the original went up nearthe northernmost point of the Big Island, near Kamehameha’s birthplace.

    Making Kamehameha look Roman is a classic example of Eurocentrism.Hawaiians do not look Italian. James King, lieutenant to Captain Cook,said Kamehameha had “as savage a looking face as I ever saw.” “Savage” ofcourse was a Eurocentric way of saying “Polynesian”; Hawaiian womenfound Kamehameha quite attractive. Nevertheless, Native Hawaiian activistPoka Laenui points out that the statues do symbolize how Hawaiians of thatera were finding ways to “walk in two worlds”?their own culture and theEuropean-dominated world economy. Hawaii adopted a written constitutionand other accoutrements of modern nationhood. Regardless, Europeanswere taking over Hawaii as they were taking over Kamehameha’s likeness.In 1887, whites forced Kalakaua to sign a constitution supporting whiteinterests. Venereal disease, cholera, influenza, measles, typhoid, smallpox,and other diseases from Europe and Asia, including leprosy which arrived in1830, decimated the Hawaiians. Hawaii’s Native population shrank fromperhaps 350,000 when Captain Cook arrived to about 35,000 by 1893. Inthat year American residents on Hawaii, aided by 162 United States sailors,overthrew Queen Liliuokalani, Kalakaua’s successor. It seemed then thatNative Hawaiians might disappear from their own country as thoroughly asthe likeness of King Kamehameha had from his own statue.

    Since then, “pure Hawaiians” have continued to decline in number toabout 8,000. In the 1970s and 1980s however, in a development that paralleledBlack Power and American Indian movements on the mainland, thenumber of Hawaiians who identified themselves as Native Hawaiian soared.So has the number of Native Hawaiians learning Hawaiian music, dance,language, crafts, and navigation. In the 1990 census about 140,000 peoplehad substantial Hawaiian ancestry and were identified as Native HawaiianAlthough that is only one-eighth of the population of the islands, their numberscontinue to increase rapidly.

Entry 26 tells of a similar population decline and rebound among NativeAmericans, and a corresponding rise in the number of those identifyingthemselves as American Indians.

Copyright © 1999 James W. Loewen. All rights reserved.
ISBN: 1-56584-344-4