claim otherwise

< Previous | Next >

VicNicSor

Banned
Russian
Some historians, among them Carl Bridenbaugh, have speculated that Don Luís was the same person as Opechancanough, younger brother (or close relative) of Powhatan (Wahunsonacock), paramount chief of an alliance of Algonquian-speakers in the Tidewater.[3] Opechancanough himself became paramount chief and led two famous attacks on Jamestown settlers, one in 1622 and another in 1644. The Virginia anthropologist Helen C. Rountree has suggested this is unlikely to be true, arguing that the Virginia Indians may have claimed otherwise "in an attempt to disavow their association with Opechancanough, whose memory was still so detested by the English due to the attack of 1622."
Wikipedia

Explain, please, what would the claim? Or "otherwise" is the direct object of "claim"?
Thank you
 
  • Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    What I think (with a shorter version):

    Some historians have speculated that Don Luís was the same person as Opechancanough. Opechancanough became paramount chief and led two famous attacks on Jamestown settlers, one in 1622 and another in 1644. The Virginia anthropologist Helen C. Rountree has suggested this is unlikely to be true, arguing that the Virginia Indians may have claimed that it was true "in an attempt to disavow their association with Opechancanough, whose memory was still so detested by the English due to the attack of 1622."

    The Virginia Indians apparently were saying that it was true that Opechancanough led two attacks on the British – and they disagreed with this – in order to return to peace with the English, which they once enjoyed. "A period of relative peace between the Powhatans and the settlers ended not long after the death of his brother, Wahunsonacock, when Opechancanough became the new chief."

    Added: Please see post 10.
     
    Last edited:

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    What I think (with a shorter version):

    Some historians have speculated that Don Luís was the same person as Opechancanough. Opechancanough became paramount chief and led two famous attacks on Jamestown settlers, one in 1622 and another in 1644. The Virginia anthropologist Helen C. Rountree has suggested this is unlikely to be true, arguing that the Virginia Indians may have claimed that it was true "in an attempt to disavow their association with Opechancanough, whose memory was still so detested by the English due to the attack of 1622."

    The Virginia Indians apparently were saying that it was true that Opechancanough led two attacks on the British – and they disagreed with this – in order to return to peace with the English, which they once enjoyed. "A period of relative peace between the Powhatans and the settlers ended not long after the death of his brother, Wahunsonacock, when Opechancanough became the new chief."
    One thing I don't understand is:): Helen C. Rountree says that those attacks are unlikely to be true. Then she says (these are her words?) "detested by the English due to the attack of 1622", as if it were a fact... That is, did those attacks take place or did not? (in her opinion)
     

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    l believe the attacks did take place. She's saying that they were probably not carried out by Opechancanough.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    l believe the attacks did take place. She's saying that they were probably not carried out by Opechancanough.
    But she said: "Opechancanough, whose memory was still so detested by the English due to the attack of 1622", that is, not only the Virginia Indians, but also the English did think so...?:confused:
     
    Last edited:

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    It sounds like the Indians are saying that Opechancanough carried out the attack, and they don't agree with that, so they are on the side of the English who detest him.

    Since no reason is given for the Indians to say this – a serious omission, in my opinion – this can only be speculation on my part. If you're really interested, it sounds like more research is in your future.

    Added: Please see post 10.
     
    Last edited:

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    It sounds like the Indians are saying that Opechancanough carried out the attack, and they don't agree with that, so they are on the side of the English who detest him.

    Since no reason is given for the Indians to say this – a serious omission, in my opinion – this can only be speculation on my part. If you're really interested, it sounds like more research is in your future.
    he Virginia Indians apparently were saying that it was true that Opechancanough led two attacks on the British – and they disagreed with this
    Just to be sure I understand you correctly: by the red phrases you meant the the Indians believe that the attacks took place but disapprove of them, right?
     

    Copyright

    Senior Member
    American English
    To be honest, everything I said was speculation – and when reading Wikipedia articles I always remember that they're written by people like you and me who look through their sources, listed at the bottom of the page, and then summarize the information.

    So I went to Encyclopedia Virginia and found this quote:
    In his History and Present State of Virginia (1705), Robert Beverley Jr. wrote that the Indians claimed that Powhatan's brother or close relative, Opechancanough, "was a prince of a foreign nation, and came to them a great way from the south-west: and by their accounts, we suppose him to have come from the Spanish Indians, somewhere near Mexico, or the mines of St. Barbe." The Virginia Indians may have said this in an attempt to disavow their association with Opechancanough, whose memory was still detested by the English due to attacks on English settlements he led in 1622 and 1644.

    In this quotation, it sounds like the Indians are saying: He's not one of us, so don't blame us for his actions.

    I must be truthful and tell you that my interest in this subject has waned. I would suggest that you look at the link and read the original from which the Wiki article was written. My apologies for any confusion I may have introduced with my previous remarks.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top