Over at Racialicious I responded to a blog entry titled Culturally Clueless FAQs—Number 1. The subject was whether the black agenda encompassed the agendas of other minorities.
You can read my response there, but I basically said that blacks, Indians, and other minorities should support each other. Someone named Jess came back with this response (slightly edited for clarity):
It's a tad dated now (I think it was written in 1965 or thereabouts) but it is salient that for Native people, the struggle would not (by definition...almost) be for equality within the society. But to prevent colonization by that society.
Black people in that sense (and I am paraphrasing Deloria here) are colonists as well, even though they weren't put in that position voluntarily.
Obviously (I hope) I don't think the lines are cut and dried all the time and everywhere, as the history of Oklahoma (for instance) illustrates. But for the most part, you are going to end up with very different sets of interests and goals viz. American government, society and culture.
Black Separatism: Deloria's Prescriptions to African-Americans
Some paraphrases of Deloria's position from this page:
The black effort to integrate/assimilate will not succeed, and blacks should not want it to.
Instead of pursuing legal enforcement of integration, Deloria prescribes that blacks should seek cultural-political-social and economic independence.
According to Deloria, blacks should retribalize themselves as a separate people with a separate land and a separate nation.
Hence Deloria felt the two minorities had little in common. Which is why the Indians saw no need to participate in the civil rights movement. In fact, Deloria said blacks should stop trying to integrate and should seek their own independent tribal identity like the Indians'.
Dated or wrong?
This isn't just a "tad dated." It's more or less plain wrong. Here's why:
1) Although racism persists in America, blacks are more well-integrated into society than anyone would've expected in 1965. And it would be hard to argue that this integration has been a huge failure for them. Barack and Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell, Tiger Woods, Condoleezza Rice, and (for better or worse) Clarence Thomas, anyone? In 2009, is anyone seriously arguing that a black nationalist type of position is the best or only solution for blacks?
2) Indians are also more well-integrated into society than anyone would've expected in 1965. I don't know what the percentage was then, but something like 70% of Natives live off-rez in cities and suburbs today. They're going to the same colleges, working the same jobs, using the same technology, and enjoying the same entertainment as everyone else.
You can see this play out in various ways. On the trailing edge, dozens of Indian languages are dying out, unfortunately. They're having trouble surviving in the "English only" environment. On the cutting edge, Native youths are immersed in hip hop culture just like black, Latino, and other ethnic youths. Like other next-gen groups, they have everything from rappers to skateboard artists.
In '65, the post-WW II era was only 20 years old. The termination and relocation era of the 1950s was only 10 years old. Indians were still relatively segregated and could envision staying that way.
Just as a lot changed from 1921 to 1965, a lot has changed in the last 44 years. (Most of Racialicious's readers were born, for instance.) Mass media--television, computers, cellphones, etc.--have brought American culture into every corner of the world. How are Deloria's Indians going to maintain their separateness when they're a few clicks away from e-mails, text messages, social networks, iTunes, and video games? Today's Indians aren't watching Martin Luther King Jr. on grainy TV sets, they're listening to Kanye West on their iPods.
I'm not saying it's good that Indians are becoming more like everyone else. I'm all in favor of their maintaining their separate identities, values, beliefs, cultures, and languages as much as possible. But I think the battle to be truly separate is over and both Indians and blacks have "lost." Never again will they be independent the way Deloria envisioned them.
Deloria has a point, but...
I think one of Deloria's points is sound: that Indians have sovereignty, treaty, and land issues unique to them. But I also think he was looking at a limitless sort of future in the 1960s. Change was in the air and it looked as though Democrats would control the federal government indefinitely.
In that atmosphere, it was relatively easy to say, "We have our agenda, you have yours, and never the twain shall meet. Let's fight our separate battles and achieve our separate goals in 10 or 20 years (30 tops)."
Now we've endured almost three decades of conservatives dominating our government. Indians can't get a budget increase or win a Supreme Court decision if their lives depend on it (which they sometimes do). In that kind of "survival" mode, Indians and other minorities have a lot more in common than they used to. Legislation and court decisions that champion corporate rights over individual rights hurt everyone (except the power elite).
If you're not convinced, check out Obama's 2009 budget. I imagine there are some items that pertain specifically to sovereignty, treaties, and land rights. But the priorities for Indian country in 2009 are the same as for every other minority: jobs, healthcare, education, and law enforcement.
I don't know what the Indians' priorities were in 1965. Or what Deloria thought they'd be in 2009. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the top priorities for Indians in the 1965 budget were jobs, healthcare, education, and law enforcement. These are perennial concerns for every disadvantaged minority.
The bigger picture
I also think Delora missed an overriding point. Let's assume he's right that inner-city poverty isn't an Indian issue and land-into-trust decisions aren't a black issue. I'd still argue that if we change the American mindset from one of selfishness and greed to one of tolerance and inclusion, everyone will benefit. If we make America a more caring and compassionate society, everyone will benefit.
Take the recent battle over Proposition 8 in California. Gay marriage affects only a small number of people, so does that mean it isn't a black or Indian concern? No. I'd say it should interest these minorities even if they don't consider it "their" issue.
If we legalize gay marriage and nothing bad happens--as it surely won't--it'll push the cultural dial a little further to the left. People will think, "Hey, this multicultural stuff really works. Now that I actually see 'gay culture' in action, I realize my fears were unfounded.
"Since gay marriage and a black president haven't destroyed the Republic, maybe we should address other items on the so-called liberal agenda. For instance, global warming and universal healthcare. Or inner-city poverty and sovereign treaty rights. If we finally address these things too, maybe they'll also turn out as well as progressives predict."
In that sense, I'll continue to maintain that one minority's battle is really everyone's battle. This goes beyond any particular cause to the overall goal of realigning the country's values. When we achieve gay, Native, and black rights, America becomes more diverse and multicultural. Then we all move forward together.
For more on the subject, see Culture and Comics Need Multicultural Perspective 2000.
P.S. Nothing in this essay is meant to exclude Latinos, Asians, or other ethnic groups. We could plug in their names and issues and make the same sort of arguments.
6 comments:
"Take the recent battle over Proposition 8 in California. Gay marriage affects only a small number of people, so does that mean it isn't a black or Indian concern? No. I'd say it should interest these minorities even if they don't consider it "their" issue."
That might not be the best example to use, as California Blacks overwhelmingly favored Proposal 8, much more so than the general population, whites, and Latinos. Blacks made pretty clear their concern in this.
But that is a minor point. Overall, an interesting discussion.
Its an interesting argument, Rob. The one point that I feel needs to be added to this interpretation of Vine's 1965 writing is that a separate cultural environment, to whatever extent possible, is something that should be pursued, as opposed to an effort that has already failed. You can certainly argue that the battle to be truly separate is over and both Indians and blacks have "lost.", but this implies that the effort for separate cultural space is no longer worth pursuing. I also have the feeling that "truly separate" probably meant something different to Vine than it does to you, or to me for that matter, which further complicates the judgment that any such battle is "lost".
Its true that there are very few human beings untouched by the Rock music/TV culture. This doesn't mean that separate cultural spaces are impossible. They exist to varying degrees. I don't believe that Vine's ideas about separatism required total absence of influence. But it is existentially important that American Indians have the choice to live in a community/society where they are deciding for themselves, with their own cultural values, how to steer their own destiny. Separatism doesn't mean pretending the other doesn't exist, it means having your own ship to steer.
The U.S., in spite of its multi-cultural aspirations, is still a culture defined by western european values. Indians who chose to live in the U.S. should certainly have equal rights and opportunities, but where our struggle differs from that of other minorities is that we have separate nations within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. Those nations include TVs and computers, as befits any modern nation, but different value systems prevail as fundamental defining characteristics. The effort to increase the capability of these societies to steer themselves according to these values is the pursuit of separatism.
So perhaps I'm essentially taking issue with how you've defined some of the terms used by Vine and the interpretation of these concepts. I don't find Vine's perspectives wrong or dated in regard to Indians at all. If I was to be critical of this particular piece of writing, I would probably argue that it isn't necessarily appropriate for Vine to suggest what is or isn't good for black people. That is for them to decide.
"I'd still argue that if we change the American mindset from one of selfishness and greed to one of tolerance and inclusion, everyone will benefit."
This concept, I think, is fundamental to any type of reform within the U.S. I recently participated in a Health 2.0 barcamp. Time and time again our discussions on how to create lasting, positive changing within the healthcare system came back to our national sense of entitlement and desire to maintain or achieve a standard of living that exceeds almost every country in the world.
"On the trailing edge, dozens of Indian languages are dying out, unfortunately. They're having trouble surviving in the "English only" environment."
Minorities often have the ability to empower themselves in ways the mainstream healthcare system cannot. Health information outreach projects in inner-cities which uses barbers and hairdressers to provide information are often more successful than other modalities. Persons who are key information nodes within non-integrated minorities, naturally use culturally-specific communication strategies.
Minorities which completely integrate would lose that ability along with their "cultural identities."
I had honestly forgotten about DeLoria’s issue with black separatism. In that sense I’d agree with you. That’s one reason I said the thing was a bit dated.
Also, the sovereignty issue to me makes the Native struggle a bit mote akin to the national liberation struggles of colonized people all over the world. I do think you gloss over a tad the reasons that Native people have been pushing sovereignty in many different ways rather than just letting it slide — I mean, think of the Salamanca (NY) dispute back in ‘92. The Senecas could have ust said “well, we’re part of the US now” and let it go. They didn’t and insisted on their land rights as outlined by treaty.
You are correct tho that the situation for Native people — at least in terms of urbanization and participation in the wider culture — is a bit different now. But I’d argue that that makes recognizing those treaties and sovereignties even more important.
And none of that negates the need for common cause between minority groups, see the IWW quote "n injury to one..." I’d say I disagree with DeLoria on that point in particular.
I mean. saying that the Native struggle for land rights and sovereignty and the struggle of other minorities for their rights aren't mutually exclusive, are they? I don't think you'd take that position.
I agree for the most part with lostonroute66. Here, for better or worse is my opinion. Too much water has gone under the bridge to go backwards. It is up to the adults of various cultures to pass on their traditions to their children. It is no one else's failure or responsibility to maintain those customs and cultures.
Look at the Irish. They are the second largest decended immigrant group in the country (Germans are number one.) They statistically are better educated and better off financially. Because there are sources for keeping those customs and culture connections alive and well all over our country. Why? Because the adults cared enough to see that their heritage was passed on to new generations.
To be tollerant is our responsibility as a nation... to foster and keep those cultures alive, is the responsibility of those cultures themselves.
Regarding the blacks who supported Proposition 8 (i.e., who opposed gay marriage), I'd say they're as wrong as the others I'm talking about. Namely, the people who don't think blacks, Indians, gays, and other minorities have a wealth of common causes.
If they disagree, let them prove how gay marriage would hurt them specifically and how a more multicultural America would hurt them generally. Good luck with that.
I think I've made it clear that I support tribal nations, reservations, and communities and oppose assimilation as a goal. In other words, I support the Native pursuit of "separate cultural space." This is closely related to the pursuit of tribal sovereignty and treaty rights, of course.
But I tried to distinguish between "separate" and "truly separate" for a reason. These separate spaces will never be free of the need for economic development, healthcare, education, and law enforcement. Thus, they'll never be free of the need to work with other minorities on matters of mutual interest.
From what I read of Deloria's position, I'm not sure he'd agree with this. Since he's not here, I have to guess. My guess is that time has proved me right and him wrong. The last 44 years have demonstrated the need for minorities to work together whenever possible.
Post a Comment