shoshone

John Two Hawks

103 posts in this topic

Another thing, I told my friend about how Two Hawks named Tuomas "Shadow Wolf" or ...

 

 

1.John called Tuomas "Shadow Soul". Not "Shadow Wolf" !!!

2.Tuomas went to the American embassy and asked for the name of good Lakota flute player. Not google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. http://www.beyondear...&do_pdf=1&id=30

 

Tuomas explicitly says John named him Shadow Wolf. (He also says that John performed a naming ceremony on him, which contradicts John's email where he insists Once Upon a Nightwish made that up to make him look bad.) (Note, NO ONE except for a medicine man has the authority to perform a naming ceremony, and you certainly don't perform it by burning sage and making up a name!! It involves praying, dreaming, and preparing sacred gifts.)

 

That interview aside, Sunkmanitutanka Nagi does not mean Shadow Soul. Sunkmanitutanka means Woodland Wolf. Nagi is a made up word. The real word for shadow would be hanzi or mahipiohanzi. Look up any basic Lakota dictionary, like the ones Google Books lets you preview for free, and you will see this for yourself.

 

2. I was referring to information from Once Upon a Nightwish, which I now know is unreliable, but that is beside the point.

 

Here is the real point.

 

a) John Two Hawks is not an enrolled Native American, which he admitted in his email after I was unable to find him on the Oglala rolls. Therefore, according to the Indian Arts Act of 1990, he is breaking the law by advertising his music as Native American, and himself as a Native American artisan.

 

b) John Two Hawks is not speaking Lakota in Creek Mary's Blood. He's speaking gibberish. Three different sources agree on this. The only person still claiming Two Hawks speaks Lakota, is Two Hawks himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shoshone

 

http://www.rockunited.com/twohawks.htm

 

Here is the source I found.

 

If you can answer me: ..Why are you so concerned about the situation?

However, Nightwish and John have spent good times and that's it.

From composing the song to the present, is time about 9 years, and no one had found no objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't say on that page that he named Tuomas "Shadow Soul." He says, "I call Tuomas a shadow soul." That's a very big difference in dialogue.

 

Why am I concerned? Because I'm American Indian (Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Wind River, Ft. Washakie, Wyoming). Because I grew up seeing all my friends and family face discrimination. Because I grew up seeing talented women like Nadine Vasquez and Shannon and Shauna Baker get denied work just because they are Native American (guess what? when they pretended to be Latina, they got the work that had previously been denied them--discrimination? you bet), while this white guy can claim Native American heritage and get the accolades he doesn't deserve. He doesn't understand our culture. He is misrepresenting our culture. He is abusing our culture.

 

I'm going to assume you're not familiar with Native American history. That's okay, most people aren't.

 

In 1879, all Native Americans had their culture stolen from them. Little children from 6-12 years old were ripped out of their parents' arms and put in handcuffs. If the parents tried to save their children? They were shot to death. The children, handcuffed, were then forced into boarding schools where their traditional hair was cut, where their traditional clothing was thrown away. They were told to dress and act white. They were told to speak English. Their real, sacred names were stripped way from them, and they were given new, white, meaningless names, like Frank and Jane and Bob. If the children were caught speaking their Native languages? They were poisoned with lye until they vomited blood. If the students refused to pray to Jesus Christ? They were beaten to death. You think I'm lying? Go to Carlisle, Pennsylvania and look at the boarding school cemetery that goes on for five miles.

 

And guess what? These boarding schools were still going on in 1970. My freaking parents went to these boarding schools and were permanently damaged by them. It led to my mother committing suicide.

 

For hundreds and hundreds of years, we American Indians have had white people actively steal our culture, our land, our language, everything sacred from us.

 

John Two Hawks pretending to be Native American, when he most certainly is not, is simply yet another way that settlers have invented to steal our culture.

 

So yes, real NDNs get very, very ANGRY at the fakes who exploit and prey on our culture.

 

Especially when they BADLY misrepresent what that culture stands for, as John Two Hawks most CERTAINLY has done.

 

How would you like it if somebody pretended to be your relative, while completely misrepresenting who you are, where you come from, who your family is, and what your life is about? How would you like it if somebody walked around spreading lies about you, and making money off of those lies?

 

I don't think you would like that at all.

 

 

 

 

*edit* And you are incorrect that no one has found objection. I linked it on the last page: People were saying this guy is a phony as far back as 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Don't get angry on me please :) I just find some info's and quoted you, that's all.

 

I trust you for this information's because I read some history books about Native Americans, but I've never particularly been interested as much as I am now.

You are quite right, I'm not really familiar with your traditional history because I'm on the other side of the world and have never really any desire to take an interest about that. But I promise that I will take an interest in your history and I will reveal the truth about injustices to your people :) Once again, don't be angry at me ;)

 

/sorry for the little of-topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really didn't mean to sound off on you like that. :unsure: I get very angry about this topic. We have weirdo fake shamans coming onto the rez all the time asking to be given spirit animals. You get tired of the fakes after a while.

 

I owe you a big apology, and I'm very sorry.

 

(And I don't mean to go off topic here, so I'll let this be my last remark. :ph34r: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again shoshone for your concern and the information you provided.

You have every right to be mad about the situation , especially since it's something that is passed along in a book published in several languages in a large enough number of copies around the world.

It's important to get the facts right - even if some years passed by - and to take action against frauds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very curious question: If the book says lies, fabrications and alters facts, why didn't NW guys change it? Why didn't Tuomas say something? People may say that the author wrote things independently of the guys, but then we can apply this to everything written there and not believe anything. I doubt the book was published before the guys read it.

So, why would Tuomas lie then? He wouldn't have anything to gain from this, and I think he's quite clever not to misunderstand things and "ceremonies".

 

And, if Two-Hawks knew there are lies in the book, why hasn't he said anything all these years? And if he hadn't read the book (which I doubt), and he just found out about this, has he contacted with the guys and the author?

 

Questions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming there are, in fact, lies in the book, it's possible the author is not responsible. The version most of us know is not the original but a translation. I have no clue if these supposed lies are in the original as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even there are alterations in the translation, this still means that if Two-Hawks had read it, he would still see that there are differences and lies. So, this part of the question still stands. I don't think Two-Hawks reads Finnish :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

 

Nothing official on my end (obviously--I am but a peon :P ), but I e-mailed JTH's letter to my Lakota friend, here's what she had to say.

 

Ok Shell lemme pick my jaw up off the floor.....lol not EVEN...

 

I aint even gonna touch that message. my eyes glazed over trying to read it. But then he had to go and speak FAKE LAKOTA at the end and now I am really pissed off.

 

If you can grab hold of this bogus guy, tell him REBECCA LONE ELK has a bone to pick wit him....

 

"Ya kici wanagi, na e'cun waste.... (Go with spirit, and do good....)"

 

Ain't a real sentence at ALL.... The only word he got right in the whole thing was kici

 

Step One: In Lakota the object comes first in the sentence, the verb comes LAST

 

What does this mean?

 

English sentence order: "Mary slapped John" subject verb object

Lakota sentence order: "John Mary slapped" object subject verb

 

Watch the transformation from Eng. to Lakota...

"Mary slapped John"

"John Mary iyeyakun"

 

Here's another example

 

"Waste sehingle" = "I keep doing good things"

 

Sehingla/sehingle means to keep doing or happening....and it's at the END of the sentence.

 

Now let's look at this phony guy's sentence...

 

"Ya kici wanagi, na e'cun waste"

 

.....Well I can't find the verb but "waste"=the object ("good")

 

..........Now....the object should be at the start of the sentence as I said.... He put WASTE at the end of the sentence...much like some white guy would do if he were translating direct English into Lakota, just by crackin open a dictionary and translating the words.

 

Here's how you REALLY say, what he was trying to say.

 

"Go with spirit, and do good"= Nita-wokonze, awaste

 

Lets pick apart my sentence.....

 

Nita-wokonze means "purpose of spirit" but that's just how you would say it in Lakota. Because if you don't have purpose in there no one's gonna know WHICH spirit you mean (iktomi the trickster? the west wind? you gotta be specific), but if you put in purpose then its got to mean the Great Spirit or Holy Spirit....or some sense of divine being..

 

Awaste is one SIMPLE word, it just means to be good. Thats it. You don't need two different words because in Lakota you usually blend words together. Which this guy doesnt do. Therefore he aint speaking Lakota. He speaking English dressed up as Lakota.

 

OK, lets go back to his sentence and see where he went wrong......

 

Ya kici wanagi, na e'cun waste.... (Go with spirit, and do good....)

 

First off wanagi doesnt mean spirit

 

Wanagi means SPIRITS.....there's an S on the end....but it's usually meant to be bad spirits. Ghosts or demons

 

So he's telling you to "go run around with demons" or something

 

He tellin you to "go to hell"? .......MAYBE

 

Kici do mean "go" but like I said, in Lakota the verb goes at the END of the sentence!!!! come on, a kindergartener knows this stuff!

 

e'cun......WTF "e'cun" isnt a word. Ima guess he means HECON. Hecon means to do or be. But it should be behind "waste." And another thing, "waste hecon" doesn't mean "do good" it means "be a good thing/person." so if he meant hecon it's COMPLETELY the wrong form of the word "to be."

 

Ya kici wanagi, na e'cun waste

 

Here's how this would literally read in English

 

"Bad spirits you go with and good e'cun"

 

notice how it sound cavemanlike.....well that's exactly how it sounds in Lakota.

 

"Go with spirit, and do good"="Nita-wokonze, awaste"

 

very SIMPLE here......no smoke and mirrors......

 

Come ON......how do ppl not see this guys a total fake!!!!

 

I, uh, tidied up her vernacular (cough expletives cough) a little. <_< Everything else is left untouched.

 

After a very long and rambly message about not wanting to go to work, she also told me she hates what JTH is doing because it gives the wrong impression about her language and makes it harder for non-Natives who are interested in learning it to go to a reputable source. (JTH did say he's done teaching/lecturing, didn't he? I hope he's not teaching fake Lakota somewhere in Arkansas...)

 

That's all for now. I don't want to go to work either, but I must. :P

 

Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even there are alterations in the translation, this still means that if Two-Hawks had read it, he would still see that there are differences and lies. So, this part of the question still stands. I don't think Two-Hawks reads Finnish :P

Of course he would, that's not my point. It's just that when you mentioned the author it occurred to me that it's possible his version is correct and the translator(s) messed something up. Like I said, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting... In the Finnish book the information about the naming ceremony is expressed as a straight quote of Tuomas. The only thing that is the author's describtion is "...Two-Hawks decided to give his Finnish friend a Lakota name in a shamanistic ritual". Then Tuomas describes (half a page) the ritual, his feelings about it and his new name. "John was dancing around me, burned some incenses, he was drumming and singing and he gave me the name Sunkmanitutanka Nagi which means Shadow Wolf." It feels really strange if John Two-Hawks now says there never was such a ritual.

 

There is about 2 pages about John-Two Hawks in the book and 85% of it is quoting Tuomas and John Two-Hawks. I've no idea how things are told in the English version because I have never read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much same as you said here from memory. It's been about 2 years since I read it, but I remembered that the JTH bit was quoting by Tuomas and this was the first thing I said to mojo last night when we read John's response about author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird. And here:

 

One, the book you mentioned, ‘Once Upon a Nightwish’, I am sorry to say, is chocked full of mistakes, misinformation and complete fabrications, especially where they have written about me.

JTH basically says there are other, um, mistakes in the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Tuomas had too much wine and imagined John dancing round him etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Holopainen is no "Shadow wolf" at all, huh. Some people might want to change their names on the various forums, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It'll be a nice change, since "Shadow Wolf" is for me the most pretentious name evaarrr, especially for a white guy. These names represent some things very special and sacred for the Natives, most of them come from their torments and their past and I highly doubt people like Tuomas have gone the same(ethnic cleansing, tortures, genocice, racism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they are not connected with tortures and genocide, I guess, as you say, they must be special and sacred, and have certain meaning and value, connected with traditions and specific beliefs. I start to get idea of the significance of the heritage, and the belonging, of the blood so to say for the Native Americans, by what Shoshone is writing.

 

Anyway, on top of that, I can't accept Tuomas to be a wolf, with his sneaky nature he reminds me of an entirely different animal, but this shall remain unspoken/kidding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Yes, not the names themselves, they go back to their tradition, but many of the names given the last decades may have to do with everything they have gone through :)

 

It's like a fashion nowadays to call one's self a wolf, lonely and whatever, but on the contrary wolves are "pack" animals and not lonely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's like a fashion nowadays to call one's self a wolf, lonely and whatever

 

Yeah. And when you think about it, the big cats are so much cooler :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ollila´s Once Upon a Nightwish tells about John Two-Hawks on pages 215 - 217. I quote part of the text.

 

"Rather abruptly one day, John said he wanted to give me an Indian name," Tuomas recalls. "He´d done it only two times for a white man, so it was a great honor. His forefather had told him in a dream that a person must receive a certain name because he is worthy of it. I was naturally immensely flattered. The naming ritual took place in the recording room of Studio C at Finnvox, in the presence of John, me, and my girlfriend at the time - because John told me she had to be there too. I stood there wondering about my new name, and was quite sure I´d become Laughing Cow or something!"

In fact Tuomas´s new Lakota name echoed something far more subtle and personal. "John was dancing around me," says Tuomas. "He burned some kind of incense, drummed, and chanted. He dubbed me Sunkmanitutanka Nagi, which means Shadow Wolf. In the Lakota tradition, the wolf is a teacher who lives in dark and shadowy places, appearing in light only from time to time to guide and teach people and other beings with his art. John said that I´m exactly that kind of a person, and I do see myself in that light. If I beleived in reincarnation, I would definately say I was a wolf in my past life. For some weird reason, I have incredible stong affinity for wolves.

The fact that he named me Shadow Wolf gave me the shivers," Tuomas continues. "I´m certain that something happened during that ceremony, as I felt a weird feeling overtake me. The wildest thing was the gift that John gave to me. When an Indian gives you a gift, it´s not just anything, it´s his most valuable worldly possesion. Two-Hawks gave me a seashell wrapped in rabbit skin that had belonged to his forefathers. I was stunned. It was an unbelievable honor."

 

According to Tuomas´s account there was a witness for the ceremony, his ex-girlfriend.

Ollila´s Once Upon a Nightwish also tells that John Two-Hawks was interviewed by Timo Isoaho of Soundi Magazine. To Isoaho, Two-Hawks presented himself as a Native American musician who also translated Tuomas´s poem to Lakota language (pages 215, 217).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like a fashion nowadays to call one's self a wolf, lonely and whatever, but on the contrary wolves are "pack" animals and not lonely.

Well, it's always possible that's the point... That is, since wolves live in packs, a wolf without a pack is a pretty lonely wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is, exactly the point DownHill's missing. Wolves are naturally pack animals, but every once in a while, a wolf will stray out of its pack and live on its own, therefore making itself a "lonely wolf".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.