Bonds are forged and cultural issues examined as the cast of Richard Montoya's new play tackle such topics as the U.S. military, Native American history and war.
By Reed Johnson
Well, actor Russell Means, an Oglala Sioux and longtime Indian rights activist, told Peterson, that's a word that we don't use, actually.
"It's demeaning, and every time the white world talks about American Indians they use all the demeaning words they can to describe us, like we're nothing," Means said in an interview this week with Peterson, Montoya and two other Indian cast members, Geraldine Keams and Brandon Oakes.
Perhaps especially when depicting one of the most misrepresented and cruelly stereotyped of all U.S. ethnic groups.
"One of the traps would have been, OK, we're depicting this rez and it must be positive," Montoya said. "Because we get that in the Latino, mostly movie and television world, 'We must project positive images.' And I think we do feel like, yes, there's something important about that. But when I look at how complicated a rez or a tribe can be with traditional folks versus this casino movement versus there's some abject poverty. . . . There was one rez in New Mexico where there were 16 heroin overdoses."
"When I was like 7 to 9 there was a war on my reservation between the New York State Police and my neighbor, the head of the Mohawk warriors," Oakes said. "Guns to me are just like a tool that's to show part of your emotion and how you feel, like I feel strong enough to pull out a gun and hold it in my hand."
True, they also emphasize that they're members of sovereign nations. But these two terms aren't incompatible.
I'd say the distinction is something like the distinction between "Native American" and "American Indian." "Nation" is what you call the entity in a formal or political context; tribe" is what you call it in an informal or personal context.
For more on the play, see Indian Shtick in Palestine, New Mexico and Palestine, New Mexico Premieres.
4 comments:
well Ive heard people use both 'tribe' and 'Nation' interchangeably in the same discussion.
plus are you talking about when he said..........
'Well, actor Russell Means, an Oglala Sioux and longtime Indian rights activist, told Peterson, that's a word that we don't use, actually.
"It's demeaning, and every time the white world talks about American Indians they use all the demeaning words they can to describe us, like we're nothing,"'
Because, what I got from that was that Means and others from his nation do not use the word 'Sioux' to identify themselves, from my understanding the word is negative and a name the french had given to them. but I could be wrong considering the fact that I did not read all of what was said. *shrug*
Is it just me, or is there something truly condescending about outsiders using the word 'rez'? I noticed it several times in the article, 3 quoted as said by Montoya. Is it really so hard to say 'reservation'? My friends and I all seem to agree that this is annoying, but maybe it's just us.
I have no idea what Russel Means is talking about, but I'd really like to know. I don't even know what the rest of the article is getting at. Weird.
We have only the article to go by, Chance. Means's comment was a direct response to Peterson's use of the word "tribe," not "Sioux."
I'm an outsider who uses the word "rez" too, M. But I usually use it as shorthand only after I've used the full word "reservation."
Yes, the article was kind of sprawling. I wouldn't have wanted to be the one who had to sum it up in a headline.
M. said "Is it just me, or is there something truly condescending about outsiders using the word 'rez'?"
I'm the same way on this as Rob. I would have used the term "res." as shorthand for "reservation" regardless. However, I never see that used. "Rez" already exists, so why not use that?
M also said: "Because, what I got from that was that Means and others from his nation do not use the word 'Sioux' to identify themselves, from my understanding the word is negative and a name the french had given to them."
There are actual legally recognized tribes/nations that call themselves Sioux. I stopped counting at 10.
Beyond that, "Sioux" can be a convenient shorthand as an umbrella term for referring to the closely related groups of tribes in the upper central United States area. It's a lot easier than saying "Lakota/Dakota/Nakota". Some call all of them just Lakota, or just Dakota, which is incorrect also.
Post a Comment