March 14, 2009

Churchill the indigenist

I Am Indigenist

Notes on the Ideology of the Fourth World

By Ward Churchill
Very often in my writings and lectures, I have identified myself as being "indigenist" in outlook. By this, I mean that I am one who not only takes the rights of indigenous peoples as the highest priority of my political life, but who draws upon the traditions—the bodies of knowledge and corresponding codes of value—evolved over many thousands of years by native peoples the world over. This is the basis upon which I not only advance critiques of, but conceptualize alternatives to the present social, political, economic, and philosophical status quo. In turn, this gives shape not only to the sorts of goals and objectives I pursue, but the kinds of strategy and tactics I advocate, the variety of struggles I tend to support, the nature of the alliances I am inclined to enter into, and so on.

Let me say, before I go any further, that I am hardly unique or alone in adopting this perspective. It is a complex of ideas, sentiments, and understandings which motivates the whole of the American Indian Movement, broadly defined, here in North America. This is true whether you call it AIM, or Indians of All Tribes (as was done during the 1969 occupation of Alcatraz), the Warriors Society (as was the case with the Mohawk rebellion at Oka in 1990), Women of All Red Nations, or whatever. It is the spirit of resistance that shapes the struggles of traditional Indian people on the land, whether the struggle is down at Big Mountain, in the Black Hills, or up at James Bay, in the Nevada desert or out along the Columbia River in what is now called Washington State. In the sense that I use the term, indigenism is also, I think, the outlook that guided our great leaders of the past: King Philip and Pontiac, Tecumseh and Creek Mary and Osceola, Black Hawk, Nancy Ward and Satanta, Lone Wolf and Red Cloud, Satank and Quannah Parker, Left Hand and Crazy Horse, Dull Knife and Chief Joseph, Sitting Bull, Roman Nose and Captain Jack, Louis RĂ­el and Poundmaker and Geronimo, Cochise and Mangus, Victorio, Chief Seattle, and on and on.

In my view, those, Indian and non-Indian alike, who do not recognize these names and what they represent have no sense of the true history—the reality—of North America.
Comment:  Churchill wrote this essay in 2000, before his 9/11 essay got him in trouble. Curiously, though, I don't think he ever calls himself an Indian here. By labeling himself an "indigenist," he can claim the mantle of past Indian leaders without having any biological or cultural ties to them.

Of course, I and many Newspaper Rock readers could claim to be indigenists also, even though we're not Natives. I don't know about anyone else, but I try to draw upon Native traditions as I criticize the political and cultural status quo. Whether one is Native or not, I'd say an indigenist perspective is an important and valuable way of looking at the world.

For more on Churchill, see Churchill Trusts a Jury? and Churchill Goes to Trial. For more on the Native perspective, see Why Write About Native Americans? and Culture and Comics Need Multicultural Perspective 2000.

Disclaimer:  Nothing in this posting is meant to support any of Churchill's words or deeds except the words noted here.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Uh-huh! Yeah, me too. I'm like an "indigenist."

I have very high hopes that Churchill will soon fade into total oblivion so that Indian Country can eagerly await the arrival of the next fraud to garner national attention.

kalisetsi said...

I wouldn't go so far as to say that by labeling oneself "Indigenist" you are necessarily "[claiming] the mantle of past Indian leaders without having any biological or cultural ties to them". I guess its kind of the same thing as a man calling himself a feminist. However, I think that if one were TRULY indigenist (and not just proclaiming oneself as such) that one would be far too humble to claim anything not rightfully their own.

Rob, I hate to call you out again, but I read it like I see it. I'm frankly surprised that you would claim to "draw upon Native traditions as you criticize the political and cultural status quo". Okay, yeay for criticizing the political and cultural status quo, we love that part! But I have never ever never seen your writing reflect a real understanding of Native traditions (and of what tribe??). I do seem to recall you mentioning traditions once, in a debate with some NDN about something, and I have a vague memory that it came across badly. Tread lightly with the traditional stuff- it's sensitive territory, and I'm sure you can understand, given your extensive documentation of non-Natives taking and re-interpreting facets of all things "Native."

Is Ward Churchill even an indigenist? That's a good question...How would I know?! I wouldn't go so far as to say I support him or am a fan of his work, but I will say that he has written about some interesting topics (including Natives in the Criminal Justice system- an area that is sadly overlooked) although I've never read too much of his work in any detail. I have seen him speak in person a few times- I'm from Berkeley and he was a regular fixture at "Indigenous Rights" events, along with others (as a paid speaker, I assume).

I'm very bothered by a lot of things that came out about Ward over this controversy, but I have to say I'm almost equally as concerned by how CU handled it. I followed the case closely a few years back when it was unfolding, but I'm not convinced I'm able to necessarily separate truth from lies based on what I read at that time. I'm curious to see how this trial unfolds; but I kind of see it as a lose-lose situation at this point.

dmarks said...

I think it is fair to say that Ward is "[claiming] the mantle of past Indian leaders without having any biological or cultural ties to them" due to a reasonable interpretation of one of the things he says.

Churchill does seem to be doing a bit of a "Wannabe" act with his statement of "I think, the outlook that guided our great leaders of the past: [long list of historic Indian figures].

Note the word "our".

kalisetsi said...

You're absolutely right, dmarks. In using the word "our", Churchill is attempting to "claim the mantle..." in some way. And I would also agree with you that Churchill may have a bit of a "Wannabe" problem- in general, as well as specifically demonstrated by his use of "our". Still, I don't think that either of those social faux-pas on his part necessarily come out of his self-identifying as "indigenist". I mean, its not "Indigenist" that's problematic in and of itself so much as WARD himself is problematic ;)....

dmarks said...

It is a clunky word, anyway. When someone says they are an indigenist, I am tempted to offer them some pepto-bismol.

But in looking it up, I see it is sort of a real word. I also find the word "Indianist".

kalisetsi said...

Lol re: the pepto-bismol- you're absolutely right!

Anonymous said...

The word also reeks of pseudo intellectualism; even before the facts about him came out Churchill was hardly a credible source. Isn't it amazing how the man seems incapable of shame? Keep digging yourself in deeper churchey you'll be in China in no time!

Rob said...

If you read Churchill's essay, you'll get a good sense of what he thinks and how he writes. As with Russell Means and other controversial figures, I find his views interesting even if I don't agree with them.

I'm glad you think DMarks is "absolutely right," Kalisetsi, since he was quoting me. That means I'm absolutely right too. <g>

Y'all are thinking of indigestionists, not indigenists. An indigestionist is someone like Archie Bunker who gets an upset stomach frequently.

kalisetsi said...

LMAO to your comment Rob. Contrary to what it may appear ;P I do NOT troll your blog solely to be a thorn in your side and contradict you. In fact, I often agree with what you say, but I tend to be more motivated to comment when I see something that rubs me the wrong way or just seems....well, wrong.

Technically, the point I was agreeing with dmarks on was that Ward was "claiming the mantle" through his use of the word "our," including himself amongst the "great leaders"/Indian intellectuals of the past. Where, on the other hand, I interpreted your original post to say Ward was "claiming the mantle" simply by labeling himself an indigenist. (Which YES, sounds both like a stomach ailment and smacks of academia, but I would disagree that Ward fouled out simply by virtue of applying that particular label to himself). A small distinction, and possibly I misunderstood your original post. Besides, none of it really matters since Ward has committed a whole mountain of fouls anyway......there's no defending him (and I wasn't trying to). I was more intrigued by the idea of the term indigenist.

Whether or not I agree with you, I enjoy reading your blog, I respect your perspective, and I hope my words are never interpreted as mean-spirited, as that is absolutely not how they are intended.

Anonymous said...

"In my view, those, Indian and non-Indian alike, who do not recognize these names and what they represent have no sense of the true history—the reality—of North America."

Is it just me or does this statement wreak of supremacism? He's claiming that Indians (no mention of Latinos, Blacks and various white ethnicities) have no part of the 'true' history of the US. It'd be like a Black guy with an afrocentric idealogy claiming that the Black history is the only true history.