"the good land"

[low_delta]

I recall hearing, when I was a kid, that "Milwaukee" meant something about "where the three rivers meet." So I was always a little annoyed when I heard Alice Cooper telling Wayne and Garth...

Wayne Campbell: So, do you come to Milwaukee often?
Alice Cooper: Well, I'm a regular visitor here, but Milwaukee has certainly had its share of visitors. The French missionaries and explorers began visiting here in the late 16th century.
Pete: Hey, isn't "Milwaukee" an Indian name?
Alice Cooper: Yes, Pete, it is. In fact, it was originally an Algonquin term meaning "the good land."
Wayne Campbell: I was not aware of that.
Alice Cooper: I think one of the most interesting things about Milwaukee is that it's the only American city to elect three Socialist mayors.
Wayne Campbell: [to the camera] Does this guy know how to party or what?

Okay, first of all, there were no Algonquins here, as far as I've ever heard. Second, "the good land"? Give me a break. Granted, it wasn't swampland, like where they built Chicago, but who the hell names their home, "the good land"? From what I hear, the tribes in this area were transient, anyway.

Anyway, guess what I found in the Wikipedia entry for Milwaukee?

The Milwaukee area was originally inhabited by the Fox, Mascouten, Potawatomi, and Winnebago Indian tribes. Milwaukee received its name from the Indian word 'Millioke' which is thought to have meant 'The Good Land', or 'gathering place by the water'".

Someone's having a bit of fun in the user-editable encycolpedia?

I want to fix this, but where do I go to find the truth? I want something to back myself up with. I foudn somewhere that said the gathering place name was Potawotami, so I can't ask them. I need to find some other tribe. I looked around a little for some online Native American language info, but didn't find anything.

Then I tried Google. I looked up the phrase, "gathering place by the water". Guess what I found? "Milwaukee received its name from the Indian word Millioke which is thought to have meant 'The Good Land', or 'gathering place by the water.'" Many times. About two thirds of the results were this exact sentence. They all seem to have copied it from the same source. Could the source have cribbed it from Mike Myers? Or is it true?

I don't get it.

Comments

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

http://www.milwaukee.org/faq/index.cfm

True or not, it appears to be a part of accepted belief now.

...although, there does seem to be some minor confusion over whether the word meant "gathering place by the water" or more "meeting place of the rivers". Unfortunately, no sources are cited for the differences, so I can't give you a good lead. :-/

"good land" just doesn't fit, though

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I'd have trouble believing that a movie could influence accepted history like this, but I'm sure all of these websites came into existence after the movie did. And almost all of them, I imagine, did their historical research online.

[kingseyeland.livejournal.com]

I forgot that bit about electing three Socialist mayors.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Funny. The movie, I mean. Frank Zeidler himself (one of the socialist mayors), is an awesome guy.

[roadskoller.livejournal.com]

I've always heard it was "gathering place by the water". And I couldn't tell you where I heard that.

As far as I know, it now means "gathering place in the taverns".

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

the gathering place for firewater?

[emschin.livejournal.com]

You are so funny!!

[aki-dreaming.livejournal.com]

I just popped an e-mail off to Haskell Indian Nations University to see if they can recommend another source of information. I will let you know as soon as I hear back from them what they are able to offer.

This is the reason I don't have much respect for Wikipedia. Useful, but infinitely corruptable.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your help. I haven't had much time to devote to the problem.

I don't think Wikipedia is as corupt as many people think. Considering how widespread this (possible) misinformation is, I wouldn't consider the error to lie with Wikipeida. It is good, though, to view information there with skepticism. The main thing it has going for it is the sheer amount of information.

[aki-dreaming.livejournal.com]

I don't consider the error to lie only with Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does worry me from time to time, basically because of things like this. Have we run this past Snopes?

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

As a reference librarian, I think Wikipedia is wonderful. Although you should read it with a certain skepticism, you should do that for everything, anyway! Although at any given moment, seemingly factual information in Wikipedia could be wrong, over time, overall, it remains an excellent source of inforamtion due precisely to its editablility. And it provides many excellent links for researchers to peruse their own subjects further.

Depending on what Kevin finds out, he might either be able to change a common misconception, or verify it with an authoritative source, via Wikipedia. That's cool!

Fair enough!

[aki-dreaming.livejournal.com]

I guess I have less faith in the nature of the human animal. I've met too many people who cherish the opportunity to screw with other people's heads! I'm sure someone at Haskell will have someone they can direct us to for accurate information on the etimology.

Re: Fair enough!

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, but the good thing about Wikipedia is that its staff is constantly on the lookout for abuse.

Of course, not all librarians share my positive view of it. :)

Re: Fair enough!

[aki-dreaming.livejournal.com]

I'll admit I'm enthralled with the ideal of Wikipedia. I hope it's able to live up to its potential.

Re: Fair enough!

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's true democracy! :D

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I think human nature works with us, in this case, along with the nature of the system. First of all, there are more people who intend to keep Wiki accurate, than there are people who try to mess it up. And the fixers are more tenacious, and have more tools at their disposal. For example, if I find the truth about this Milwaukee thing, I'm not going to leave that page alone.

Second, people generally add information, but don't take away what is there. Since people are always eager to fix errors that they see, barring maliciousness, things get more accurate over time.

So I don't think it's all that bad. Just don't use it in the footnotes of your research project.