AGAINST THE DARKNESS

Multimedia System

A Dialogue with the Producer

Compiled by Frederick M. Wiseman, Ph.D.

#CDMS090106-1

Q. Does Against the Darkness portray a “native” view? Some may argue that it tends to represent a Euroamerican, “dominant culture” view, and is therefore not representative of the Vermont Abenakis.

A. First, this question assumes that there is a unified “native” view with a consistent philosophy. As I have pointed out elsewhere (e.g. Reclaiming the Ancestors, Chapter I), there are many Native American worldviews, even within a single Native Nation; and mine (the “Sovereigntist” or “autohistorical” paradigm) is but one. Thus as a Missiquoi community member, rather than a “lone Indian researcher,” I necessarily sought and received indigenous community support and affirmation from Missisquoi for Against the Darkness, and rewrote those sections deemed unworthy or controversial. Thus the film also reflects the collective wisdom of the scores of Missisquois who helped the production team refine the film’s message.

For example, the coffin nails shown in the Second Child sequence are not the originals, (from caskets from the shores of the Missisquoi River), but coeval nails from a late Sheraton/Empire Transition Chest of central New Hampshire origin. I and other Missisquoi citizens consider it disrespectful to the Abenaki ancestors and descendents to show the coffins’ original nails. So why discuss the nails at all, you may ask? For an important argument of Abenaki persistence. And since the recognition criteria of the Vermont Attorney General and the Bureau of Indian Affairs require authoritative scholarly voice external to the Missisquois, I sought aid from my scholarly friends and allies. The original nails were reburied, but not before they were studied by the late Jim Petersen, an archaeological colleague from UV, as well as myself. Nails can be easily dated as to the time of introduction. In addition to rusty early hand cut and forged nails, we discovered, through observation of longitudinal “grain” in the rusted alloy, as well as parts that were miraculously spared significant oxidation (perhaps due to oil from the cedar coffin boards), late “double pass-cut” varieties that were patented in the early mid 19th century. This information was the first link in an argument that I had to make to defend Missisquoi against assertions of community political disappearance. The second link was to show documentation that the cemetery was native. My colleague, physical anthropologist Deborah Blom of UVM, studied the burials associated with the coffins at the request of Chief April Merrill. She authoritatively identified the individuals as native; based on distinctive characteristics of the bone and teeth. The third link of my argument was to show that the relationships among the numerous burials uncovered in a single cellar hole was evidence of political activity, something that the VT Attorney General had claimed disappeared in 1790. Professor Blom specializes in the communal and political aspects of burial grounds, and was the logical authority to speak to the issue of communal political authority applied to burial grounds and practices. She went on camera to state that this was her conclusion from the systemic nature of the burials. Thus the argument against Missisquoi’s collective existence (for the 1800-1840’s period) was ruined. There were Indians at Missisquoi in the early mid 19^th century, and they retained the political power to segregate and maintain a communal burial ground. Thus Missisquoi leaders such as Chief April Merrill gained valuable evidence for the recognition petition to the Federal Government.

This you can see, the above example is a careful use of European “dominant culture” weapons (e.g. trade guns in the past, research today) in defense of native sovereignty. That is the crux of the worldview of the modern Indigenous “data warrior”—to respect tradition, but also to use one’s best tools to defeat seemingly reasoned attacks on native continuity and identity. In a sense, this view complements and empowers other native viewpoints. More importantly, I was specifically asked, as Tribal Historian, by the St. Francis Sokoki Band Tribal Council to develop “user-friendly” arguments in defense of Abenaki credibility before the public and VT Legislature—I would argue that this imprimatur gives the Against the Darkness a legitimate native voice. In addition, after the Missisquoi voice was perfected, the film was screened for other Vermont, Quebec, Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts Native people to make sure that it was not offensive to them or their histories. Thus while the video is a Missisquoi voice, it stands as a “case study” of a wider regional conflict and accommodation.

Q. With all the maps, images, artifacts and music, did you have problems with copyright?

A. No, not at all. All of the objects and imagery are from originals in the Wôbanakik Heritage Center collections or copies of originals held by the St. Francis Sokoki Band, so there was no copyright problem. The music, by Peter Buffet, was obtained from him without cost, as his generous gesture to help the Abenakis take their message of continuity to a wide audience.

Q. Was the video professionally filmed and edited?

A. No, it was shot by Missisquoi Abenakis with consumer and “prosumer” video cameras. However, we used the professional-grade Vegas 6 non-linear digital editor for final video production, since we were familiar with the consumer-grade “Vegas Movie Studio” that we had used before. The current iteration is the result of myriads of screenings, then critique, then editing and shooting “pickup” scenes, then re-editing, and repeatedly screening for audiences until they almost revolted (my family and friends had to endure screenings on a weekly basis for two years—I am sure that they can quote it chapter and verse). Thus the video is not a polished professional production, but developed through a process of production team creativity and effort, working interactively with continual communal input. I guess it was actually a trial and error evolution toward what it is today.

Q. How did you choose the actors?

A. Since this was to be a Missisquoi production specifically to document a Missisquoi history, we attempted to audition young Abenaki community members from the major families of Missisquoi, but were unable to have representatives of all. Also some early selections could not to participate in the filming. So we widened the “net” to include other local Abenakis not from the core lineages of “core” Missiquoi families. Interestingly, there was early on a concern by some community members that the actors should “profile” the modern phenotypic diversity of Missisquoi with regards to skin tone, hair and eye color. Others, such as a Canadian Abenaki from near Montreal, believed we should have actors who looked stereotypically “Indian”. We chose to not discriminate based on a young person’s looks. But, in post audition discussions with the Missisquoi community, we nevertheless had to note that some actors had gray or hazel eyes, some had sandy hair, etc. This concession seemed to assuage the concerns of almost all Missisquoi citizens who discussed the issue with the Production Team. We did not re-configure the actors through make up or wigs except in the 1609 “DVD opening sequence,” where wigs were used to conform to early 1600’s accounts of “girdle- length hair” “falling loosely on the shoulders.”

Q. Are the clothing and artifacts worn and used by the by the actors really Abenaki?

A. Not all. Some earlier materials, such as First Child’s red shirt with the silver “ring brooches” is a reproduction, made in 1998 in Vermont (nevertheless “made by Abenakis for Abenakis”). Others such as First Child’s moose hide leggings are Abenaki—they came from a barn in Eden Notch, VT, and had a technological and oral history of being Indian. Due to an extensive interest in 18^th century firearms, there is a lot of information on First Child’s musket. It was made in what is now Belgium in the early 18^th century. According to distinctive post-manufacture modifications; we conclude that it was sold as “surplus” to the French in the mid 18^th century. Too obsolete for use by regular French forces, it was “de-pinned,” and converted in France or at Louisbourg (now Nova Scotia) to a banded “Fusil a domino” musket. These guns were apparently for trade or giving to the French allies such as the Abenakis. First Child’s musket, in particular, has a Wells, Maine (considered Abenaki homeland by the St. Francis Sokoki Band) history of origin, but is probably not Vermont Abenaki. Second and Third Child wear a mix of original (e.g. waistcoat and vest, necklaces, moccasins) and reproduction (e.g. shirts and pants, paddle) clothing and accessories. However, the later cut-cloth fringe” style clothing, and associated jewelry, worn by Fourth and Fifth Child, are of indigenous Vermont origin, as are the baskets.

Q. How did you choose the artifacts for inclusion in the documentary (non-acting) portion of the video?

A. When I first came to Vermont in the 1980’s, VT ethnohistorian John Moody, Abenaki artist Jeanne Brink, and I began collecting VT native objects for a future Abenaki cultural center. Ms Brink specialized in baskets, while I began the “Material Heritage of Native Vermont Project” at Johnson State College, focusing on other native materials. I remember that we were intrigued by the richness of the indigenous materials in a state where there were not supposed to be many Indigenous people. Today, nineteen years of accumulating and research later, the Wôbanakik Heritage Center has several thousand Wabanaki (Abenaki, Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, and Micmac) artifacts in all materials, from stone to beadwork. My hard-won apprenticeship with Wabanaki materials permitted a “first cut” selection of the materials out there for inclusion in the Heritage Center Collections. Quite a few objects were sold or given to me by Swanton antiques dealers/antiquarians such as the late Gordon Winters and Ben Gravel, or Abenakis such as Ed Hakey (who also gave materials to my father, which then came to me). I have two objects that descended within my family. In addition, I have known the major “regional” quality Antique dealers since the 1970’s, such as Michel Prince of St. Eulalie, Quebec, Fitz-Gerald’s Antiques of Vergennes, VT, and the long-defunct Ethan Allen Antiques of S. Burlington and Park Antiques of Rutland. These dealers let me know when something of historical or geographic interest came their way, as well as shared their years of experience dealing in local native goods. Often I was able to purchase these items at cost. Through their kindness, many of the objects were tracked back to the original (or at least early in the “selling train”) dealer, and if possible the original owner/seller, who was interviewed to obtain an oral history, and “best guess” as to the ethnicity of the object. The Heritage Center also maintains an archive of hundreds of articles, archival imagery, museum photographs etc. for comparative purposes to assure a reasonable certainty as to native origin. Materials analysis was a valuable adjunct, including wood analysis, micro-immunological analysis of surface-deposited lipids, and technical materials analyses. For example, the Treaty of Greenville Medal seen in the Second Child chapter was sold to me in Springfield, VT, but originally came from the “north of Burlington” area. This artifact has often been faked by unscrupulous dealers. The video example was discovered, through microscopic examination, to be a cleverly concealed fused-plated silver (also called “Sheffield Plate” by collectors), a common technology in 1790, but not used today for fakery and extremely hard to imitate without very sophisticated metal presses. The best modern fake Greenville medals are solid sterling (but unmarked, of course). I also used stylistic attribute analysis—a recognizable “medal pouch” (used for storing a religious or political medal while suspended from its chain) from Vermont, has a construction style similar to mid 19^th century Maliseet and Penobscot work, yet a distinct beadwork pattern not published or exhibited from that area. Its overall style is quite different from non-Wabanaki work, and may represent an additional “style” of beadwork, and one indigenous to Vermont. Rick Kershner, Head Conservator at Shelburne Museum, was ready to provide an independent authentication of materials and dating if needed for recognition. Objects in the collection shown to be fake or non-Wabanaki were de-accessioned for what they were (I was “taken” quite a bit at first--a valuable, if expensive, lesson in humility!). A select subset of these historically, geographically and materials analysis- vetted objects was chosen for recognition purposes. The criteria for this purpose was that they have a Vermont provenance, since they were originally chosen to refute the State of Vermont’s assertion that there were no post-1790 Vermont Indians. However, I included, for the educational video, pieces from the Eastern Townships of Quebec in a triangle from Sabrevois, Quebec to Abercorn, Quebec, since this was the old territory of the Missisquoi Abenakis and their immediate relations (and my father’s mother’s ancestors). Any farther north and the materials’ provenance may be arguably of Odanak derivation, and inappropriate for any other use than as actors’ clothing and accoutrement.

In addition, this huge production of native-produced artifacts bleeding into the wider VT and New England world was the documentary basis for the narration describing the aboriginal selling of various crafts to the early Vermonters.

1. Where did you get the archival portrait imagery in the video?

A. The two paintings used at the climax in seventh child are modern interpretations of Eastern Native people done by student/artists at Johnson State College, and are not necessarily Abenaki, but depict appropriate period clothing. Many of the ambrotypes and tintypes are from my father’s mother’s family and therefore have a perfect provenance. The cartes de visite and later paper-based photographs are my family, and from images lent to me by Chief April Merrill from her family photo collection as well as the rich imagery in the Archives Room at Tribal Headquarters. To retain detail, these were photocopied with the high-resolution color copiers at an office supply store in St. Albans, and then digitally scanned.

Q. What about the genealogy in the video?

A. First, I am not a genealogist, and I did not feel comfortable with using proprietary

family records from Missisquoi, even with the noble purpose of defending the St. Francis Sokoki Band against external attack. I could not use my ancestry line because it goes three miles “north of the border” to Phillipsburg, Quebec in two generations, and therefore, according the Attorney General, not “Vermont Abenaki.” However, several of the local NW VT genealogies have been published, and exist in the in the public domain. They have not been debunked by the wide-ranging researches of the VT Attorney General or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and so they are assumed to be usable, at least as a general artistic model for the descendency of Missiquoi Abenakis. The lines are available on the larger Internet genealogical databases, and I chose one from an Internet source. Interestingly, the lineage brushes mine (by marriage, not blood) in the 1800’s.

Q. A critic has said that Against the Darkness is 1/3^rd brilliant, 1/3^rd OK and 1/3^rd is “BS.” How would you respond to the “BS” accusation?

I would say that in some respects the critic may be right. This is in great part an epic drama, and an attempt at assembling information into a coherent series of “snapshots in time.” Therefore there is a lot of art in the film in addition to science. First, the narration is scripted, and is reflects as producer, my personal interpretation of NW Vermont native history, one apparently not held by the person referred to above. For example, we cite the Wampum Laws of the Seven Fires in the First and Second Child episodes. This is a reference to my research on the Great Council Fire Alliance, which I believe included the Missisquoi Abenakis. We have no direct proof of this from extant VT records, but we cite a document from Canadian archives that reflects this view at the time. Everyone else around Missisquoi belonged, so why not the VT Abeankis? Some historians may disagree with this, and see the interpretation as BS. I am also sure that some of the artifacts, despite my best research and interpretation, are not originally from the Vermont or Canadian Missiquoi regions. But as far as I know, nobody else has published on American Abenaki material culture, and so I have little to guide me in this pioneering effort, except the oral history/provenance from dealers and owners, or stylistic and materials analyses. In the end it is always a balance of the evidence. I had to be very careful here, since these data went to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who could call upon Smithsonian or other scholars to critically review the artifacts and their provenance. I am also unsure of portions of the genealogical example used for the generations in the film; due to it’s having to be in the public domain (because of Missisquoi Community concerns). The pre 1800 data is “sketchy” in my opinion. So there may be problems with that; but our old nemesis, the VT Attorney General, would argue that the other Missiquoi genealogies are also “sketchy” during this time. Thus I believe in the long run it is probably no better or worse than other equivalent Missisquoi databases. Can they be challenged? Of course. May portions of the genealogy be found to be false? Perhaps. But in the end, we went with it for the artistic purpose of establishing the generations as a creative way of providing snapshots of Missiquoi time. The maps, documents newspaper articles, etc. included in the video are empirical and so there can be no doubt regarding their existence or what they say. Some were edited for clarity and compactness.

However, there is a not-too-subtle political aspect to the issue that needs addressing. There are many entities who are promoting their own political and economic agendas, which this video may contradict. First, there are Native Vermonters who trace their ancestry to Odanak, an Abenaki Reservation in Canada. Odanak is “on the record” as seeking to establish a homeland in Vermont for economic development purposes, by reinterpreting the Missisquoi “Robertson’s Lease” as an Odanak-based document. It has also adopted an “on the record” official policy of denying the authenticity of indigenous Vermonters, especially Missisquoi. I believe that this strategy is designed to legally clear the way for eventual land claims in Vermont. Second, much of the teaching of Vermont Abenaki history is Canadian (Odanak, Wôlinak) or Midwestern (Pan-Indian) based, rather than American Abenaki. The video shows that there is actually something of value in indigenous Vermont. Third, many current VT “Professional Abenakis” are outspokenly connected to Odanak rather than Missiquoi. Thus the arguably forensic Against the Darkness represents a direct “shot across the bow” to their political, cultural and economic power, and they may be rightly concerned about how this may affect their work or Odanak’s political designs on Vermont. They may believe that it is in their best interest to discredit the film. There are also disgruntled Abenakis and Euroamerican scholars who have been rejected, for various reasons over the years, by the St. Francis Sokoki Band, and their resentment may be transferred to the movie. So it may be in the best political/economic or emotional interests of such people to take the information in the video and attempt to re-interpret it so as to not represent an authentic Missiquoi history.

As long as their concerns with Against the Darkness are fact-based rather than political or personal, they can be addressed in future versions of the ADS. Thus a dislike of the movie, for whatever reason, that leads to valid criticism, provides a valuable service to the advancement of Missisquoi scholarship and local native sovereignty. I have no problem with others following in my footsteps showing me to have been wrong (no matter what their motivations)—that is how science progresses. Indeed, my old mentors taught me that I should be the first one to disprove my previous interpretations, and, if you look at the evolution of interpretation between my 2001 Voice of the Dawn, and my 2005 Reclaiming the Ancestors, you will see that I have. That is what the website is for—it is to offer “corrections” and re-interpretations” so that the ADS is an evolving entity triangulating in on the Missisquoi/Vermont past. We have all learned so much in doing this film that there are some parts (but not 1/3^rd) I would change, knowing what I do now. But if the production team kept re-doing and re-editing it to keep up with our learning progress, it would never be released. There is an old adage that a good artist knows when to stop—and we stopped on Sept. 20, 2006—it is the best we can now do with what we have and know.

Q. You keep pointing out that this is a “Missisquoi Video”—how can it be used as a teaching tool in, lets say Bellows Falls, so far from Northwestern Vermont.

A. There are several ways to look at this question. First of all, I, as producer, am a Missisquoi Abenaki, as were most of the actors, advisors and “approvers.” So that, I suppose, would constitute a personal or “production team” Missisquoi voice or viewpoint, one that would perhaps not be shared by other Vermont groups.

Second, we can envision Missisquoi as a single micro-regional entity encompassing parts of Swanton Highgate and perhaps parts of Sheldon and St. Albans VT. This was the area that served as location for the acted segments of each chapter, as well as the local referent to many of the documents cited in the video. In this geographically restrictive sense, the video’s message may be seen as a microcosm or case study of larger scale processes that affected all New England Indians. The decisions, hopes and tribulations that Missisquoi went through were in many ways repeated from Narragansett Bay to Maine, and so it helps us understand our collective history.

Third, this video was originally designed as an explicit defense of the St. Francis/Sokoki Band’s political geography as well as its culture. This band title is not just a name-- it has meaning. “Sokoki” refers to an area in S.E. Vermont and adjacent NH and MA, and “St. Francis” refers to the St. Francis River, which arises in Lake Memphramagog and flows northward through the Eastern Townships of Quebec. This designation is meant to signify a larger homeland, one that is specifically cited in the petition for Federal Recognition. For example it is the policy of the Band to consider all Vermont (as well as other areas not applicable to this discussion) its homeland, except for the southwestern corner, which the Band recognizes as Mahican territory, represented by the Stockbridge Munsee Tribe. That is why I used artifacts from all over Vermont, rather than just the NW Quadrant. I could have “legally” included an even larger area over to the boundary with Indian Island (Penobscot) land claims in west-central Maine, but chose not to in the “documentary artifact” selection. However, a few objects from the wider homeland were used as props for First and Second Child due to the dearth of VT Abenaki materials. Thus the script and narrative had to show not only a local community, but also a wider “homeland” persistence of Native life.

In summary, if we look at Missisquoi as a small distinct community, it is nevertheless an important case study of what was going on in VT over the last two hundred years. If we take a more “political” view of Missisquoi that includes a “homeland” thesis component, then it is in essence directly applicable to all of VT (except the Mahican territory). Either way, it is a valuable description of past VT indigenous life.

Q. This seems like a relatively “polished” production; how much did it cost to make and where did the money to fund it come from?

A. It is not “polished,” but rather is a reflection of how far video technology has come in the last twenty years. Taping, editing and effects creations that would have taken weeks and months by specialists and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment can now be done for pennies on a laptop computer by a novice like me. I purchased the video cameras, microphones, lighting, camera stabilizers/supports, and computers/peripherals/software etc. out of pocket. Over the last two years this cost has been just over $10,000. The production team, advisors, actors, screening facilitators, content editors, copyeditors etc. were volunteers. A work-study student at Johnson State College, and the Humanities Department Administrative Assistant occasionally helped with copying and distributing drafts of the documents to numerous reviewers. I probably have 40 or so hours of raw acting and background footage, and there was unrecompensed travel and set-up time associated with that. In addition, my son Fred and I put in seemingly countless hours in editing the document. People such as Jeff Benay, the late Jim Petersen, Gyan Baird spent huge amounts of unrecompensed time in helping with all aspects of the production from conceptualization, writing, filming, editing to final approval, and facilitating the “burning” of the final CD/DVD “combo paks.”. This probably adds up to thousands of hours of volunteer time. The only direct funding for the project came through requests to the Governor’s Commission on Native American Affairs. This included a $500.00 grant for parts of the digital editing process in 2005, and approximately $2000.00 for professional production of 1000 copies for distribution in 2006. So the bottom line is about $2500.00 cash, $10,000.00 in equipment, and scores of thousands of dollars in “in kind” volunteers’ services.