What's in a name?

Just take my first name, Charles. It's the name of saints, kings, and (probably) millions of commoners. Whenever someone says my name, I turn and look to see who is calling me. Of course, I feel embarassed when I respond to the caller and find out it's not me they're addressing, but another person named Charles.

I sympathize for the Johns and Jennifers who grow up with dozens of other Johns and Jennifers. (At least those were the most common names in my grade school days.) On the other hand, one might sympathize with Geoffrey and Yvonne, whose names no one can ever seem to spell correctly.

Then there are nicknames - like Jake for Jacob, or Debbie for Deborah. Imagine an aunt whose nickname is "Honey" or an uncle whose nickname is "Spunky."

Names often have a religious character. Among Christians, names may be chosen for a patron Saint (such as Francis Xavier). Among Catholics and certain other Christians, we choose another (patron) Saint for a confirmation name - mine is Gregory - but this name is never used by others or myself to refer to me.

Today names are much more rigid, due to legal issues, than they used to be. It's gotten to the point that, in Maryland, if you have a middle initial, you have to prove your whole middle name. From the government's standpoint, your name is what's on your SSN or birth certificate - rather than your baptismal certificate or what was given in some other naming ceremony.

Why all the fuss?

Names are fundamental to the studies of genealogy and history. Genealogy, after all, is the study of people and the relationships between them. History is the study of people, places, and events. You can't study people without names, and you can't discuss people without using their name. If names aren't available, historians will be forced to create them.

So, like I said, why all the fuss, in particular, why all the fuss about Indian names that my Mohawk relatives give me grief about publishing on the Internet? Am I supposed to keep it a secret that I'm part Mohawk?

1. I understand that people are concerned in general about the Internet, its safety and its privacy. But the people in question are long dead, and the information has already been published. The Internet serves as a big library for some of us. You don't have to partake in it if you aren't comfortable doing so.
2. I understand that many Native Americans are concerned about how they are portrayed, particularly with respect to accuracy. I have endeavored in every way to study and present my material in a respectful and scholarly manner. If I have erred, I would be happy to listen to correction.
3. It is well-known that some people aren't interested in genealogy and are negatively disposed towards it. But this is no reason to make others be like you. Again, if you're not interested, you don't have to get involved.

On the other hand, I have plenty of good reasons for publishing Indian names.

1. The basic function of names in any culture is to identify or distinguish people. Among Europeans in the last several centuries, it has been necessary to identify people by both a first name and a last name, since there are so many people in a given locus with the same first name. This is partly how last names or surnames came into existence -- out of necessity.
2. First names, which in this context are Christian names, are of extremely limited variety. This is characteristic of not only in French Canada, but in most of Europe, and among the Christian Indians as well. As a result, they are not sufficient for uniquely identifying individuals in a particular locus or in a family genealogy. Since these individuals have no other names that can fulfill this purpose, it is necessary to use the Indian name.
3. Without the Indian names, the identity of these people as Native Americans or American Indians is compromised.
4. While hiding things to prevent misuse may work on occassion, it is a poor and ineffective strategy. Making drugs illegal does not prevent misuse of them. Fortunately, it is recognized that in specific, limited circumstances, certain drugs have medicinal value that can benefit everyone; just because people can and do abuse prescription drugs doesn't mean we should ban them.
5. While I can understand that the Iroquois may attach a certain sacredness to a name, it is a prejudice to assume the Internet is inherently incapable of conveying sacredness. Throughout history, Europeans have been equally guilty of considering new technology to be secular, sacriligeous, etc. Over time, people eventually get used to it, but we still carry a lot of baggage with us, even today. I am a firm believer in St. Thomas Aquinas' statement that there are no bad things, only bad wills. If the Mohawks are entitled to their beliefs, I think I should also be entitled to mine on this matter. Perhaps this information needs to be presented in a certain way, to be respectful. But there's something wrong with claiming this sacredness is above every other interest.

Having said this, I will now state:

I would like and intend to include genealogical tables and information of my Christian Iroquois ancestors and cousins of Kahnawake, to complete my French-Canadian materials. I have not yet posted the material, which is why this link and this link are still missing. I would also like to post information about Indians referred to in Parkman's France and England in the New World, Henri Béchard's book, The Original Caughnawaga Indians, Devine's book, Historic Caughnawaga

If you are a Mohawk, or in particular, a Kahnawake, and have an objection to my posting my material, or wish to see the material I wish to post, please leave me a message. I really would like to hear everyone's opinion, along with their reasons, for or against.