Talk:Cohoes, New York/Archives/2012

Origin of the name Cohoes

Most likely, the current "official" explanation of the origin of the name Cohoes, that it derives from the Mohawk word Ga-ha-oose, meaning "place of the falling canoe," is specious and whimsical, although widely believed. The interpretation originated with a white historian named Lewis Henry Morgan, who liked to dress up and pretend to be an Iroquois before he got serious about history.

At the time of the first Dutch settlement, the area was inhabited by Algonquin-speaking Mahicans. The Algonquin word "cohos" (also spelled "cohas" and coos) is a frequently-used place name in relation to the courses of rivers. It means "crooked" and refers to a riverbend, and is the probable origin not only of Cohoes, but also of Coos County, New Hampshire and what were once called the "Cohos Intervales" on the upper Connecticut River. Some historians have speculated that the word cohos is so widespread that it even extends to the Indians of the Columbia River region in Oregon, where it gave rise to the names Koho (a lacrosse-like game played with a *crooked* stick) and Coho salmon. (As a point of clarification, the Alqonguin *people* lived in Quebec, but Algonquin language speaking tribes ranged from Maine to the west coast.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehti (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking into it further, the earliest mention of Cohoes = Falling Canoes is in Horatio Gates Spafford's 1823 A Gazetter of the State of New York, in which, in the briefest of footnotes, he attributes the interpretation to the Mohawk Indian Chief and British Officer Capt. Joseph Brant. Henry Lewis Morgan is merely repeating this uncited assertion. Mehti (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no judgement on if you are right or wrong, I will look into it though. But I'm telling you that people around here will think it original research on your part if you cant back up your opinion with actual citations that show it is a white man's interpretation etc. And for point of fact- the Mahicans were in fact Algonquins; your idea that the Algonquins were one people and the Mahicans simply were Algonquin-speaking people of a different type of people is a white-man's interpretation of "tribes" in America. One particular nation (preferable term to "tribe") ended up being labeled by white-man as Algonquin when Algonquin actually referred to a large number or related peoples who had split into different nations. Mahicans have equal rights to being Algonquins as the nation called Algonquin. Think of Austrians and Germans, both speak German and both ARE German ethnically, but in nationality they are different because of arbitrary geopolitical events in history; one people, two nations. The only difference in the analogy is that the German language spoken in the two countries is probably slightly more similar than the languages spoken by the Mahicans and Algonquins (but probably still mostly mutually intelligible especially at the dialects spoken near each other). Serbo-Croatian is another good analogy of two nationalities under one ethnic and linguistic umbrella despite differences that make them separate "tribes".Camelbinky (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

uh, actually, the assertion that there is an Algonquin "tribe" distinct from Algonquin-speeaking people is not "my idea" but rather the current consensus in the wikipedia article algonquin, to which I have never contributed. Regarding "original research," there are actually five or so citations added to the article to support the edits I made, which are definitely more conservative than what I posted here on the talk page.Mehti (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. And I dont really care what another Wikipedia article says (you cant cite Wikipedia itself to support anything) and I dont care what the consensus among Wikipedians is. The consensus of actual anthropologists and historians is what I said. Thanks for this debate, but I dont wish to argue. You think your opinion, I'll stick with mine.

Plus 5 or 6 citations for one fact is excessive and not within Wikipedia MOS regulations; please par it down to 1 or at most 2 of the most relevant and reliable citations. And it does bother me the age of the citations, if you can get one single, and more up-to-date citation that would be beneficial. Older does not equal better (and a source that is about the history of Conneticut can be considered non-reliable at the RS/N based the source not dealing with Cohoes as a primary topic).Camelbinky (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous feedback. I'd like to make one thing clear: I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia's editorial policies. Feel free to mention if you think I've violated any. Also, I did not "cite" a wikipedia article anywhere. This is a talk page, not an article page, and I *mentioned* an article within the context of a discussion about making another article better. This is entirely permissible. There are different sets of rules for articles and talk pages. On a talk page it is allowable to synthesize arguments based on several sources, as long as such synthesis is intended to constructively further a discussion on how to make an article better. And by the way, if you reread what you wrote, nowhere did you mention the "consensus of actual anthropologists and historians" - given that, my reference to the existing Wikipedia article is an entirely understandable and constructive attempt to engage the discussion. However, the subject of who is or who is not Algonquin, is not directly relevant to this topic, and I certainly did not intend to start it, and will not respond on it further. I was merely attempting to note the widespread use of the Alqonquin language in distinction to the perception that it was geographically isolated to the eastern "Algonquin tribe". Thanks!Mehti (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's someone's revisionist take on the origin of "Cohoes." It would be nice to find an appropriately verifiable source for the assertions.Mehti (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

After doing some additional reading, I see two competing interpretations for the Algonquin word "Cohos" (also spelled cohas, coos, cowas):

1. It refers to white pines: a region of white pine trees or people of the white pines, or the Cowasuck tribe, of the Connecticut River valley. 2. It means crooked, and refers to crooked things like a river bend.

It's possible that both are correct. The reason is that the "region of the white pines" is situated at the "Cohos Intervales" - two very large ox-bow curves on the Connecticut river near present-day Newbury, Vermont.

The problem is finding an authoritative source to link this to the naming of Cohoes, NY. There are several independent sources that discuss various aspects of this, but I haven't found any that "put it all together."Mehti (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The most definitive and authoritative refutation of the Mohawk origin of the word "Cohoes" appears to be that of historian Edward M. Rutenber, made in the 1906 edition of the Proceedings of the New York State Historical Society, in an article on Indian Place Names. This is the source that probably should be cited in the body of the wikipedia article. Unfortunately, Rutenber does not address the dual meaning (Pines/Bend) of Kahoos, so the reference within the article to the river bend probably needs to be rewritten.Mehti (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked into the various sources currently on the page and the Rutenber one mentioned above. I agree that the Rutenber source should be the only one used, and then maybe find another reliable source for anything further that you feel is relevant but not covered by Rutenber. My only concern is the 5 or 6 sources being used on one sentence is really not acceptable for an article.Camelbinky (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)