November 25, 2009

No Thanksgiving for Indian militant

No Turkey for Me:  Confessions of an Indian Militant

By Johnny P. FlynnI am an Indian militant. It is a name I wear with some ambivalence—like “Indian”—not my choice, but the alternatives for the sake of political correctness do not have the same power or panache.

This year, while most Americans celebrate Thanksgiving, we will celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the occupation of Alcatraz Island by Indian militants—around the time the term was coined. I was too young at the time, but supported those making the ironic statement about the quality of our own lands “given” to our ancestors, and the broken promise that any federal lands not in use will revert back to the Indians.

While you eat turkey, we will fast, or eat hot dogs.
After noting Thanksgiving's genocidal roots, Flynn offers a prescription for a healthier world:Okay, now that your Thanksgiving meal is ruined, let me confess that I know a way to make it taste better next year.

Without a major shift in the way humans thinks about the earth, humans are not only causing the extinction of the biodiversity of the natural world, but also our own descendants. Facing the future must be more than driving a hybrid and recycling aluminum.

We must recognize that tribalism is the most successful human social institution in the world. Tribes have survived the longest war in human history, the war against aboriginal people—and millions of people are turning to those traditions for spiritual sustenance in the modern world.
Comment:  Not sure if I agree that "tribalism" is the best route to success. True, tribes have lasted a long time, but perhaps that's due to their culture or religion, not their tribal organization.

For more on the subject, see Tribalism in Dreams from My Father and Professor on Disenrollment, Tribalism.

2 comments:

dmarks said...

"Not sure if I agree that "tribalism" is the best route to success. True, tribes have lasted a long time, but perhaps that's due to their culture or religion, not their tribal organization."

"Tribalism" can imply to me extreme and intentional isolationism, coupled with more than a small touch of supremacy. Tiny groups of people that do nothing but think locally, and act locally. I believe it is this that Obama opposed on that speech of his, and he was not opposing Indian tribes.

Rob said...

Yes, that's undoubtedly what Obama meant, but he could've phrased it better. Criticizing tribalism without elaboration is a problem when tribes are in the audience.

For more on the subject, see Dumbest Discourse Since "Niggardly"? and Obama to Dissolve Tribes?