In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter Three Powerful Women: Disruptive and Disorderly The women in Meniolagomekah made it abundantly clear that they were deeply involved in the well-being of their families and that this concern formed a powerful foundation for their relationships with the missionaries . Yet for Delaware women, just as for other Native women, the missionary contact was entangled in a troublesome paradox concerning the connection between women and power. The missionaries recognized Delaware women’s power only in its allegedly disruptive and evil manifestations, a view colored by the European view of the relationship between women, female sexuality, and Satan. Such a perception distorted and minimized women’s actual spiritual authority—an authority they expressed through prophecy and resistance to missionary efforts, as well as by encouraging the conversion of children. This chapter investigates conflicts emanating from these different understandings of women’s influence in areas of social relations , marriages in particular, and how these conflicts can be illuminated through the religious discourse of evil. Native perceptions and practices surrounding women’s roles and relationships between the sexes troubled colonists from the beginning. Profound misgivings stirred in many colonial visitors, clergymen, and political officers as they contemplated Native women’s roles and influence in their societies. Women, like Notike and the female leader Mamanuchqua, known as the Esopus queen, acting from externally visible positions of tribal leadership became increasingly rare among the Delawares throughout the colonial period. Yet it was precisely the women’s authoritative behavior that caused European men to react, and in their writings women frequently occurred as instigators of opposition to various attempts at influencing Indian society . Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Europeans condemned Lenape women, from Francis Pastorius who complained that “the women are frivolous, backbiting, and arrogant,” to David Zeisberger who charged that “the women are often ill-tempered.” What brought forth these protestations? In seventeenth-century Europe, order and an organic concept of human society meant that ideally everyone had a divinely ordained 102 Chapter Three place according to gender and rank, and it was one’s duty to accept this situation and the obligations that followed. No matter what informal power a woman might wield she almost always stood under the formal authority of a man—a father, husband, or son. With the Protestant reformation, the institution of marriage had become central to the good ordering of society. Men and women were recognized as one another’s mates and companions, but women usurping the prerogatives of men, whether in terms of authoritative or sexual behaviors, were not tolerated. Queens and empresses were known from Europe and operated within a hierarchical society where rank could outweigh gender. But the influence of women in general over the distribution of goods, decision-making, and alliances was more difficult to accept. Over the course of the eighteenth century these notions of rank began to be seriously challenged, but the strengthened position of male individuals as public citizens did nothing to bridge the gender gap. On the contrary, gender came to be viewed as the category of difference, and a separation of spheres of influence meant that Native women’s agency in seemingly public situations became increasingly troublesome.1 Europeans considered Indian women’s influence to be contrary to the hierarchical gendering desirable for a civilized society. Behind the discomfort in European sources lay a concern with establishing and maintaining order. In various ways Europeans, whether travelers, colonial officials, or missionaries, were prone to consider women more disorderly than men. The problematic rum traffic offered many examples. In 1718, the Pennsylvania government and Indian (male) leaders together sought to stave off the problem with alcohol. Indians were told that “they of their parts must Endeavour to prevent their women & young people from Coming to Philadelphia to Purchase & Carry up rum from hence, which too many were ready to Deliver them privately for their skins.” In 1766, Delaware leaders complained that “thre are some that do at times hire some of our Squaws to goe to Bed with them + give them Rum fr it this thing is very Bad, + the squaws again selling the Rum to our People make them Drunk.”2 Alcohol use had troubling connotations for both Indians and whites. While on the one hand it was incorporated into fundamental communal practices, such as burials, it was also connected to abuse and suffering. In both these areas Indian women were implicated as perpetrators and as victims. Native women...

Share