Classic demonization: Joseph Thayendanegea Brant, Canajoharie Mohawk

Bargaining is fraught with danger. You may pick the wrong prize. You may make a deal with the wrong person(s). You may wager the wrong amount and lose more than you can afford. The wrong partner may trick you to ruin the deal. A bad bargain is awful enough. But what happens when you cannot make the bargain you want – the bargain that will save your people? The answer is archetypal. You get demonized in every direction. You turn into Rumpelstiltskin. 

Joseph Thayendanegea Brant has the misfortune to watch bargains go wrong on all counts. In the wake of his failure to secure sovereignty in Upper Canada for the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois League/Six Nations Confederacy of the Grand River/People of the Longhouse), Brant’s reputation turns to ashes. 

Brant’s gravesite at the Mohawk Chapel in Brantford is in uninspiring condition (2016). No one seems to care about honouring his memory and recognizing his invaluable contribution to Canada and the Haudenosaunee.

Masons put up a plaque so far short of the real story of Joseph Thayendanegea Brant as to be breath-taking. Apparently Brant’s supporters dare not speak up to recognize his remarkable achievements. That being so, Ottawa – the soul of political correctness – need not commemorate him. A national and First Nations travesty.

Thanks to the Masons – but no thanks. Joseph Thayendanegea Brant would not have considered himself a “fellow subject” of the Crown. He and his people were the Crown’s allies in a terrible war fought on the Haudenosaunee doorstep. One would be sore mistaken to call Brant a United Empire Loyalist.


In the following paragraph is a relatively recent (2002) sample of insensitive and incorrect and ignorant opinion mixed with a pinch of fact.

“Once the white men arrived, the Iroquois peoples showed themselves adept at trading and bartering with the newcomers. But their talent was only prolonging the inevitable – the whites wanted land to expand into, and the Six Nations were sitting on prime property. The defining event was the American War of Independence in 1776. Most of the Six Nations made the mistake [sic] of backing the British, and when the thirteen American colonies won the war, the Natives’ days in Upper New York State and Pennsylvania were numbered. The Six Nations had the advantage of a leader, Joseph Brant, who had been educated in white schools [sic] and had embraced Christianity. He was just the sort of Native [American term. Not used in Canada] whom the British wished all Natives to be like [sic]. Brant helped to negotiate a deal with the British in 1784, in which nearly 2 000 people from all six Iroquois nations moved north across the border to a large and empty parcel of land [sic] on the Grand River in Upper Canada. What the British liked about the arrangement was it kept all these annoying natives in one place [sic].”

. . . and this gem 

“In 1879, the Canadian federal government had arrived at a scheme for turning heathen [sic] Native children into a semblance of Christian boys and girls; they moved them from reserves, and in the expectation of creating thousands of little Joseph and Josephine Brants [sic], they drilled them in white man’s ways at church-run boarding schools designed specifically for Native children.” 

Jack Batten, The man who ran faster than everyone: the story of Tom Longboat. Toronto: Tundra books, 2002.

Challenging Batten’s remarks
“. . . made the mistake . . .” (Batten)

Choosing England’s side was no mistake. The Haudenosaunee, who would have killed to remain neutral in the white man’s wars, had its back to the wall in 1775.  The People of the Longhouse were forced to choose one side or the other in the American Revolution. Because of Thayendanegea’s relationship with Sir William Johnson, partner of Brant’s sister Molly Koñwatsiˀtsiaiéñni Brant, the young man gravitated toward the English. Good side to pick. In fact life was far better for Indigenous people in British North America – post American Revolution – than it was for the Oneida and some of the Tuscarora, and other First Nations left to deal with the frantic expansionism of the United States. “Brant acted as a tireless negotiator for the Six Nations to control their land without crown oversight or control. He used British fears of his dealings with the Americans and the French to extract concessions. His conflicts with British administrators in Canada regarding tribal land claims were exacerbated by his relations with the American leaders. Brant was a war chief, and not a hereditary Mohawk sachem. His decisions could be and were sometimes overruled by the sachems and clan matrons. However, his natural ability, his early education, and the connections he was able to form made him one of the great leaders of his people and of his time. The situation of the Six Nations on the Grand River was better than that of the Iroquois who remained in New York.” Alan Taylor

“[Brant] was just the sort of Native [sic] whom the British wished all Natives to be like.” (Batten)

Not true. Brant irritated the British colonial administration. Administrators came to openly dislike him for thwarting their expansionist plans.

“. . . Brant’s persistence in encouraging Indian unity and in maintaining contacts with the other Indian nations became a source of annoyance and suspicion to the British government and to administrators such as Dorchester in the Canadas, who tried to keep the Indians divided, dependent, and subservient. Whereas they had once fostered an Indian confederacy and had encouraged Brant’s leadership, they now tried to discourage his diplomacy, undercut his influence, and redirect his activities to his own settlement. Brant was not one to be easily deterred, and the resulting controversy caused tension for many years.” Barbara Graymont

“[Brant’s] lifelong mission was to help the Indian to survive the transition from one culture to another, transcending the political, social and economic challenges of one the most volatile, dynamic periods of American history. He put his loyalty to the Six Nations before loyalty to the British. His life cannot be summed up in terms of success or failure, although he had known both. More than anything, Brant’s life was marked by frustration and struggle.” Alan Taylor

“. . . in the expectation of creating thousands of little Joseph and Josephine Brants.” (Batten)

Batten’s ignorant and uninformed dig at “little Joseph and Josephine Brants” is gross, and insulting to the intelligence of the People of the Longhouse. 


Brant’s Bargain 

Cautionary bargain tales are as old as sand.

Rumpelstiltskin is possibly the oldest cautionary bargain tale. Two centuries ago in The Metamorphoses the Roman poet Ovid relates the Hellenistic tale of tricky Dionysus and Midas. Christopher Marlowe pens The Tragic History of Doctor Faustus in 1592. Eight years later Shakespeare creates Portia in The Merchant of Venice to outwit the Jew who dares to strike the hard bargain with the Christian. Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust appears in 1808. Americans are not immune. Washington Irving’s “The Devil and Tom Walker” (1824) and Stephen Vincent Benét’s “The Devil and Daniel Webster” (1936) are Rumpelstiltskin stories. 

In their 1812 publication Kinder- und Hausmärchen – ‘Children’s and Household Tales’ – the Brothers Grimm include Rumpelstiltskin. Raven’s Shire blog gives us the provenance: “According to Sara Graça da Silva and Jamshid J. Tehran’s research, the Rumpelstiltskin stories are likely over 2500 years old, and possibly as old as the Indo-European’s life on the Steppes 6000 years ago.” 

In Grimms’ tale of Rumpelstiltskin the beautiful queen pulls off a fast one to quit the hard bargain. Illustrators variously capture her triumph. The queen solves the zero-sum-game puzzle, a foolish addendum to the original contract, and defeats Rumpelstiltskin. The gnome is never seen again. Good riddance. Baby and mother cannot be separated. A misshapen old fellow with knobby knees and Hobbit-like extremities should not get the best of them.


Nor should Rumpelstiltskin get the better of the miller’s daughter. In (2) Rumpelstiltskin is a lascivious and scheming red devil who preys upon a working-girl of the sweet apple-cheeked variety.


In (3) we see the bad child who is no match for the mother queen. Rumpelstiltskin exhibits the inferior intelligence and the behaviour of a naughty boy. The queen guesses his name and he has a temper-tantrum – a great ugly childish fit.


Perhaps none too scary as a naughty boy Rumpelstiltskin does better as a full-out monster. A grinch-like Rumpelstiltskin cannot break the most sacred human bond, which exists between a mother and her child. In (4) the court-jester-preying-mantis loses the game and the bargain is off. This Rumpelstiltskin is pure devil and the medieval queen saves her beloved offspring who kisses her hand – such is the child’s relief.


In (5 & 6) Rumpelstiltskin is a devious black-hatted gnome dressed like a Renaissance banker or a businessman. He materializes after it is clear that pure greed will factor into resolving the plot. Wanting a baby does not play into the banker’s motives. No. This bad fellow wants power. To get power he will kidnap the king and queen’s heir unless the queen can stop him.


In the various illustrations Rumpelstiltskin gets no respect. And no sympathy. The miller’s daughter is beautiful. She is us. If not us she is a person like us. We are a good-looking people. We are honest souls. Occasionally we may have cruel leaders and silly fathers, but we are loyal to our community. We follow the rules – except when we’re threatened with the immediate extinction of our lineage.

Enter the trick. Fear makes the miller’s daughter vulnerable to the devil’s wiles and she agrees to the hard bargain. Fear of suffering a forever loss makes her desperate to find a way out of the hard bargain. Whatever Rumpelstiltskin’s stake is in the game (and in Grimm’s version of the story we don’t know why the gnome wants the queen’s baby) we believe he asks for too much. A mother’s child is no bargaining chip. Rumpelstiltskin is audacious in adding a win-or-lose puzzle to the existing bargain. Hubris marks his downfall. We believe the same kind of audacity marks Shylock’s bargain. In wanting a pound of flesh, which would mean the death of Antonio, Shylock asks for too much. To negate the too-hard bargains, Grimm’s queen and Shakespeare’s indebted merchant must find loyal tricksters to cheat the respective demons out of their prizes. 


Who wouldn’t agree it’s better to trick the demons than to try to kill them? Better to make demons look the fools than turn them into martyrs. In Merchant a disguised Portia (7), clearly acting in conflict-of-interest, solves the legal conundrum with some fancy hair-splitting for the benefit of her kindly husband, Bassanio, and his best friend, the frantic and foolish Antonio. Shylock may have his pound of flesh but he may spill no blood in the process.

In Rumpelstiltskin the queen’s loyal huntsman wanders about the densely forested kingdom. Deep in the woods the huntsman overhears the gnome chanting his own name. The huntsman gives the terrified queen the answer to the devil’s puzzle, which will release her from her bond. Neither the queen nor the merchant can wriggle out of commitments without their caring, loyal helpers – the puzzle-solvers. 

The queen and Antonio are us and our loyal teams whereas Shylock and Rumpelstiltskin are singular and devilish opponents, who pit their tribe’s evil magic against our loyal forces and our love for our children. Consequently our team’s cheating ways lie beyond reproach. After all the gnome stands poised to steal our queen’s baby. And the stubborn Jew, Shylock, will have his pound of “our” Christian’s flesh, which effectively will kill “our” Antonio. A person without feelings of mercy is inhuman, intones Portia, and that person deserves his comeuppance. Comeuppance for the lonely devil is best served through tricks and cunning and exile rather than open enmity and violence, which gets employed as a last resort.

Thayendanegea as Rumpelstiltskin

Flip the coin. See the story from a different perspective. Imagine a cosmological interpretation of Rumpelstiltskin’s tribe. Handsome Rumpelstiltskin bargains for us. Who are we? We are the sturdy and intrepid people who dwell in the forest. We battle invaders. We strike the hard bargain. We spin the gold (collect the furs, fight in the strangers’ wars, suffer the consequences after invaders steal our land and property) for a greedy imperial parent. Why do we do it? Why do we form an alliance with the devil? We want the baby. We need the baby. The baby is us and our nation. “Our home and native land.” In the end we lose. Why? We are not out-played or out-witted; we are out-manned and out-settled.

Have we bargained with the wrong partner? Have we wagered more than we can afford? The baby at the centre of this hard-bargain is our territory and our sovereignty and our nationhood. In other words our past lives and our future lives are at stake. Do we ask for too much? No. Never. But our business with the foreign kingdom(s) is difficult because the correspondent insults our speech and our religion and our intelligence and our motives and our looks. We do not see ourselves as a team of lascivious, naughty, child-like, power-hungry, greedy, sub-human, inferior and psychopathic demons sans mercy. We see ourselves as us. We the people. The chosen ones. The exceptional.

North American gnomes are the Haudenosaunee – The Iroquois League or Six Nations Confederacy of the eastern woodland. Like the miller’s daughter, who finds herself ill-situated amongst king and miller/father and evil bargains, in 1775 the Haudenosaunee finds itself stuck. Its nation and territory sit in the middle of three powerful and conflicting forces – American patriots, the British military, and wagonloads of American settlers moving west. All three put the squeeze on the Mohawk Valley. Warriors do not know where to turn to strike the most favourable alliance for post-war consideration. Treaties of non-encroachment (see the Treaty of 1763) appear to mean nothing. Should the warriors stay neutral? Should they side with United States? Or side with England?

In the end Joseph Thayendanegea Brant strikes a bargain with the Crown. Brant will lead his men into battle against the United States. In exchange, should the Indigenous allies of England lose the Mohawk Valley, the Crown agrees to hive out sovereign territory for the Six Nations in the upper country (Upper Canada).

As Thayendanegea foretells, the American revolution devastates the Mohawk Valley. Without mercy and undertaking a scorched-earth policy, the American patriots (the Sullivan-Clinton expedition), under the direction of George Washington, seize and devastate the ancient homeland of the Haudenosaunee. At Niagara, Brant and Brant’s warriors and volunteers are keen to collect on their side of their bargain with the British. They want a county. Enter the loyal tricksters for the winning side: the British colonial government and the colonial courts.

From the Indigenous person’s perspective the English parent is both hideous and unpredictable. As awful as the Slavic Baba Yaga (9). The saviour figure – the Haudenosaunee’s Rumpelstiltskin/Thayendanegea – is a gentleman (8) who keeps his word and fights brilliantly against the American enemy. Thayendanegea tries to minimize reality but the truth, as he well knows, is hard to bear. His people are in a vulnerable position, as vulnerable as the miller’s daughter. The Pine Tree Chief knows very well Washington and the United States will never agree to the independence of aboriginal peoples. For Indigenous nationhood and sovereignty, the English hold the only (faint hope) recourse because of their promises. But what a narrative switch. The “gnomes” are handsome. The “parents” are ugly. The “tricksters” hail from the larger, foreign kingdom and they have natural biases toward their own agendas.


An interpretation of Rumpelstiltskin with handsome gnomes? With ugly mothers and fathers? With cruel problem-solvers instead of lovely Portia and the brave huntsman? Where is there such a topsy-turvy cosmological viewpoint? 

In the Raven’s Shire blog readers learn “Rumpelstiltskin is the spirit of a conquered people or one of their gods. In this possibility, Rumpelstiltskin might be after a mixture of revenge or is attempting to help his people rise up to their former glory by raising the future king of the land. In this he could be a Merlin-like figure of a conquered people who, just as Malagigi the wizard of Charlemagne’s court, was later derided as a devil by later people. Rumpelstiltskin might be a hero to a conquered people still hiding in the woods thus making him an enemy to the kingdom.” (Raven’s Shire blog.) 

The blog’s description of Merlin as a conquered hero is alluring. The people’s rising again would make a great ending for Thayendanegea’s bravery and bargaining. But no. Brant is not Merlin. At least not yet. Once a proud leader of his people and a valuable partner to allies, for Joseph Thayendanegea Brant, the end is terrible and unjust. He turns into Rumpelstiltskin. His own people turn on him.

It’s not as though Thayendanegea misunderstands the Crown’s capacity for double-dealing. Or overlooks the United Empire Loyalist court’s penchant for dirty tricks. Or believes he has no enemies among the people. But at the very least Brant dares to hope he can make the allies stick to the hard bargain they ratify when they are desperate for Indian assistance. The Crown promises Brant’s people a sovereign territory.

10 English Portia in Canada; Family Compact’s biased courts

Warriors have a strong presence in Niagara. Warriors threaten the Crown’s security and land claims in North America, which, after a disastrous peace treaty in 1783, should push the British into keeping their side of the deal.

In the end, after considering Quinte, Brant chooses the Grand River valley. General Haldimand argues the British do owe Brant something and the military surrenders the Haldimand Tract to the Haudenosaunee. Through strength and numbers Indians may win the day as long as Europe is in conflict. For warring enemies, that is, the USA and Britain, an Indian alliance matters.

But peace is bad news for the Haudenosaunee, and peace is on the horizon. The United States and Great Britain sign their final peace treaty in 1815 and Thayendanegea’s vision of a Canajoharie sovereignty for the Six Nations evaporates along with Tecumseh’s remains. First Nations cannot trust the tricky colonial courts – not ever. Brant dies in 1807. After the War of 1812-14 the great negotiator is not around to broker a decent peace treaty for the people.

To American patriots Thayendanegea is the monster Brandt [sic]. To the British colonial administration and the United Empire Loyalists, Captain Joseph Brant is devilish and ambitious well beyond the Haudenosaunee’s prestige and capacity. To them he is a loyalist among many others. No more no less. To many people among the confused Haudenosaunee, those who have no idea what Brant was up against and his skill in procuring the land on the Grand River, Thayendanegea is le vendu – the sell-out.

The reputation of the wise leader shrinks like plastic wrap under a hot iron. Thayendanegea stands alone. Suddenly he is the singular one, the greedy, the unscrupulous and the lascivious devil whom the three “kingdoms” despise. He is merely a “little Joseph or Josephine.”

For some time many historians have known the real Joseph Thayendanegea Brant is a faithful leader of his people under impossible circumstances. He is an ally of Britain (NEVER a United Empire Loyalist) and a saviour of British North America. Without Brant, neither the Haudenosaunee nor the British would have a pot to piss in, in Canada.

“Brant was a noble figure who dedicated his whole life to the advancement of his people and who struggled to maintain their freedom and sovereignty. His major failure was his inability to understand the nature of British imperialism and to comprehend the fact that the British would not permit two sovereignties to exist in Upper Canada. The Indians were manipulated and exploited by the British government to serve the purposes of the empire; they were encouraged to cede their land in time of peace, pressured to become military allies in time of war, ignored in the treaty of peace, urged to form an enlarged confederacy as a barrier between the British and the Americans, and coerced to abandon the confederacy when the British had composed their differences with their enemy and growing Indian power threatened to rival their own. British colonial agents were then urged to foster jealousies and divisions among the Indian nations in order to keep them in a state of continual dependency upon the British government.” Barbara Graymont, “Thayendanegea,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 5, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003.

Reporter John Bkila quotes Rick Monture, Associate Professor of English and Cultural Studies (McMaster), who says, “He’s (Brant [is]) over-romanticized by the white people and harshly criticized by our people. But I think he was somewhere in the middle, a man who was caught up in this big cataclysmic change (the American Revolution) for our people.”

I disagree with Monture, not about the demonizing, of course, but the romanticizing. Brant may be lauded by some local elders, or by some of his and Peggy and Catherine’s descendants, or by devotees of William Stone’s Life of Joseph Brant Thayendanegea. But in twenty-one years of teaching Canadian Studies students, I find not one – from either mainstream or Indigenous cultures – knows anything about Brant, let alone mythologizes him. In his day, Brant is a “rock star” but so is Mozart. So is George Washington. The brilliant ones among the Indigenous are too soon forgotten.

The leader of the people is “later derided as a devil by later people” – by First Nations and European-origin states. Joseph Thayendanegea Brant arouses the ire of many of the Haudenosaunee. Canada is a politically correct nation with citizens poorly educated in history. Canada does not accord Joseph Brant the honours he deserves. In fact the Mohawk Brant is a pariah. Perhaps that is the reason Oneida Graham Greene (12) agrees to play Shylock.


11 12
11 Demonized Indian devils   12 Haudenosaunee/Oneida actor Graham Greene playing Shylock at Stratford Ontario (2007)

There was once a miller who was poor but he had a beautiful daughter. Now it so happened that he came to speak with the king, and to make himself seem important he said to him: “I have a daughter who can spin straw into gold.” The king said to the miller: “That’s an art much to my liking; if your daughter is as skilful as you say, bring her to my palace tomorrow and I will put her to the test.” Now when the girl was brought to him he led her into a room that was filled up with straw, gave her spinning-wheel and reel, and declared: “Set to work at once, and if by morning you haven’t spun this straw into gold, you shall die.” Then he locked the room himself, and she was left there alone.

The poor miller’s daughter sat there, and for the life of her she didn’t know what to do; she had no idea how you could spin straw into gold, and she grew more and more afraid, so that in the end she began to cry. Then all at once the door opened and a little manikin stepped inside, saying: “Good evening, Miss Miller, why are you crying so much?” ‘Oh dear,’ replied the girl, “I’m supposed to spin straw into gold, and I don’t know how to do it.” Said the little man: “What will you give me if I spin it for you?” “My necklace,” said the girl. The little man took the necklace, sat down at the wheel, and whirr, whirr, whirr, three times the thread was drawn – and the bobbin was full. Then he put on another, and whirr, whirr, whirr, three times the thread was drawn – and the second one was full; and so it went on until morning, and there was all the straw spun and all the bobbins were full of gold. As soon as the sun rose the king came, and when he saw the gold he was astonished and delighted, but his heart grew still more gluttonous for gold. He had the miller’s daughter taken to another room full of straw – one that was much bigger – and he commanded her to spin that overnight as well, if her life was dear to her.

The girl didn’t know what to do and began to cry; then the door opened again and the little manikin appeared, saying: “What will you give me if I spin the straw into gold for you?” “The ring on my finger,” answered the girl. The little man took the ring, began whirring again with the wheel, and by morning he had spun all the straw into shining gold. The king was delighted beyond bounds by the sight; but he still did not have his fill of gold, but had the miller’s daughter taken to an even bigger room full of straw, and he said: “You must spin this yet again tonight: but if you get it done, you shall become my consort.” Even if she is a miller’s daughter, he thought, I shan’t find a richer wife in the whole world. When the girl was alone the little man came again for the third time, saying: “What will you give me if I spin the straw for you this time too?” “I have nothing more I can give you,” answered the girl. “Then promise me, when you are queen, your first child.” “Who knows how things will turn out?” thought the miller’s daughter, and in her distress she had no idea what else she could do; so she promised the little man what he desired, and in return the little man once again spun the straw into gold. And when the king came in the morning and found everything as he had wished it, he celebrated his wedding with her, and the beautiful miller’s daughter became a queen.

A year later she brought a beautiful child into the world, and she no longer gave a thought to the little man; then suddenly he stepped into her chamber, saying: “Now give me what you promised.” The queen was stricken with fear, and offered the little man all the riches of the kingdom if he would leave her child with her. But the little man said: “No, I would rather have a living creature than all the treasure in the world.” Then the queen began to weep and wail so sorrowfully that the little man took pity on her. “I’ll give you three days,” he declared, “and if by that time you know what my name is, you shall keep your child.”

All night long the queen called to mind all the names she had ever heard, and she sent a messenger far and wide throughout the land to find out what other names there might be. The next day, when the little man came, she began with Kaspar, Melchior, Balzar, and listed all the names she knew, one after another, but at each one the little man declared: “That’s not what I’m called.” The second day she inquired all round the neighbourhood to find out what names people were called there, and recited the strangest and most peculiar names to the little man. “Are you called Skinnyribs perhaps, or Sheepshanks, or Pegleg?” But each time he answered: “No, I’m not.” On the third day the messenger came back and told her: “I couldn’t find out a single new name, but as I came upon a high mountain round the forest corner by the back of beyond, I saw a little house, and in front of the house a fire was burning, and over the fire the funniest little man was leaping and hopping on one leg and crying:

‘Today I’ll bake, tomorrow I’ll brew,

The next I’ll fetch the queen’s new child;

Still no one knows it just the same,

That Rumpelstiltskin is my name.'”

You can imagine how glad the queen was when she heard the name, and when soon afterwards the little man stepped in and asked: “Well, Lady Queen, what’s my name?” she asked first of all: “Is you name Tom?” “No.” “Is your name Dick?” “No.”

“Might your name perhaps be Rumpelstiltskin?”

“The devil told you, the devil told you,” shrieked the little man, and in his anger he stamped his right foot so deep into the earth that he sank down as far as his waist; then he seized his left foot with both hands in a rage, and tore himself right down the middle into two.

Translated by Joyce Crick

[When the dwarf came to the queen on the third day and she revealed his name, Rumpelstiltskin lost his bargain. In the 1812 edition of the Brothers Grimm tales, Rumpelstiltskin then “ran away angrily, and never came back”. The ending was revised in a final 1857 edition to a more gruesome version where Rumpelstiltskin “in his rage drove his right foot so far into the ground that it sank in up to his waist; then in a passion he seized the left foot with both hands and tore himself in two.” Other versions have Rumpelstiltskin driving his right foot so far into the ground that he creates a chasm and falls into it, never to be seen again. In the oral version originally collected by the brothers Grimm, Rumpelstiltskin flies out of the window on a cooking ladle (Heidi Anne Heiner).]

Stylized European-looking Brant by Charles Wilson Peale 1797; 1 Warwick Goble; 2 & 3 unknown artists, vintage drawings of Rumpelstiltskin;  4, Warwick Goble (Mediaeval queen faces off with Grinch); 5 & 6, ©Paul O Zelinsky (queen and nurse and the banker);   7 Portia at the Trial, The Merchant of Venice; 8 Joseph Thayendanegea Brant, artist George Romney 1776;  9 Baba Yaga mother-figure, unknown artist; 10 Deviant Art, biased justice who peeks at “English” newspapers 11; demon Indians, 12 Graham Greene as Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. Feature image, Joseph Thayendanegea Brant by Gilbert Stuart.


Elements:, , ,

Tags:, , , , , ,