Commissioner: Indians should get off the rez

Indian Leaders Condemn Maine Commissioner for Reported Racist Remarks

By Gale Courey ToensingMembers of the Aroostook County business community expected Congdon to talk about economic development in the state and their region of northern Maine, an economically depressed area, MPBN reported. Instead, Congdon said that the country’s economic problems have their roots in the civil rights movement and that higher education has been going downhill ever since blacks were allowed access to American universities and colleges under the affirmative action program. Then he told those in the audience that they could forget about waiting for economic development opportunities to come to Aroostook County, and that if they wanted economic development they needed to “get off the reservation and make it happen,” the report said. He also attributed problems with Aroostoock County young people to having “bad parents.”

“Usually people are a bit more subtle than that,” said Kirk Francis, the chief of the Penobscot Indian Nation. “You have four federally recognized tribes in Maine to whom these comments are extremely insensitive at best and the civil rights affirmative action comments are much more than that. I won’t use the word, but it is what it is.”Comment:  Here's an example of how context matters. People sometimes use the phrase "off the reservation" in a non-Native context. For instance, "Speaking off the cuff, the general went 'off the reservation' with his remarks." This terminology may say something negative about Indians, but it isn't clear what. The commenter isn't trying to attack Indians, so the offense (if any) is minor.

In contrast, Congdon was using the phrase to attack Indians. He implied they're lazy, good-for-nothing bums if they don't get "off the reservation." Never mind their land's value or their cultural ties to it. Anyone who doesn't move must be a welfare-loving socialist and government cheat.

This use of "off the reservation" is insulting. And it's racist. You never see critics slamming poor white people in Arkansas or West Virginia for not moving where the jobs are. Only Indians get criticized for staying "on the reservation." I.e., for trying to maintain their roots while developing their economic base.

For more on the subject, see "Res-Love" = Abuse and Alcoholism and "Too Many Chiefs" a Major Offense?

"Res-love" = abuse and alcoholism

An article provides revealing glimpses into life on a troubled reservation:

Native American student shares struggle, dispels stereotypes

By John LonsdaleMurdo is a convergence of checkered white and Native American land in Jones County, S.D.

A town just a half-hour outside of White River, S.D., and 23 miles north of the Rosebud Indian Reservation in Todd County, Murdo is a place where the most common last name isn't Smith but is White Buffalo, Stands And Looks Back or Black Bear.

Renelle White Buffalo, senior in integrated studio arts, was raised by her grandmother and grandfather in this area.And:Her grandfather moved to a nursing home, and White Buffalo was forced to move in with her alcoholic mother, two brothers and two sisters.

"When I was in high school and middle school, I didn't want to be Native American," White Buffalo said. "I was so bitter about my mom and the bums drinking on the street and all of the bad things that I saw."And:White Buffalo took over the household—paying the bills and getting her siblings ready for school every day.

"It felt like I was trying to please [my mom] so much," White Buffalo said.And:Her youngest sister and mother started sending her Happy Birthday cards with hateful messages inside.

"They would say, 'Hey, happy birthday. I hope you...,'" she said, laughing.

White Buffalo and her brother William are the closest. They didn't speak for a year because of their mother, but they are in contact now. Her other brother is upset about how his life has turned out, and neither he nor her younger sister will speak to her.And:"Res-love" is the term used when women on a reservation have "hickies" and bruises all over their bodies. It's one of the main issues White Buffalo works toward raising awareness for as the only member of the Native American Club this semester.

"People just say, 'That's res-love,'" White Buffalo said. "People make fun of it in order to deal with it and in order to cope. I think that's a huge problem."

It isn't just res-love that was infecting her reservation, though.

"American Indians, as a general rule, live in what contemporary scholars call enforced poverty," Larson said.

Larson, director of American Indian Studies for 11 years, continued.

"They are made to live in greatly diminished circumstances creating the stereotype of the dysfunctional and the savage," he said.

Larson said there is an alcohol problem in many tribal communities, but under the circumstances, any cultural group would most likely medicate itself pretty heavily.

"It's not as simple as they're just all alcoholics," he said. "It's like the stereotype [of American] Indian students getting to go to college for free. It's just not that simple."Comment:  White Buffalo was a straight-A student so she managed to go to college, to escape. But look at what she had to endure to get there. An alcoholic mother. Running the household as a teenager. Hate from her siblings. An environment where domestic violence is so common it's laughed at.

White Buffalo had the intelligence to get away from her dysfunctional family. Yet her upbringing was enough to fill her with self-loathing at being an Indian.

Now imagine if she had been a straight-C rather than straight-A student. Or if a parent had abused her. Or if her mother had died and she was sent to a foster home. It wouldn't take much to tip her precarious life from the "win" to the "lose" column.

This is what many young rez Indians endure. It's part of what drives them to alcohol, drugs, crime, depression, and suicide. The problem isn't that they're not trying, or that they're "different" from us. It's that they're facing harsh circumstances that most middle-class Americans can't imagine.

To suggest that rez conditions are the "fault" of Indians like White Buffalo is tantamount to racism. Yes, her mother could've gotten help if help was available. But the four White Buffalo children couldn't do much about their circumstances. And so it goes in general. For every adult who may be able to exercise responsibility, there are children, elders, and others who can't. It's not their fault so blaming them is wrong.

Blame system, not victim

The problem is the environment as a whole...the lack of jobs and healthcare...the "enforced poverty." It's the intergenerational trauma stemming from broken treaties, boarding schools, and other forms of cultural extermination. White Buffalo is only a generation or two away from someone who may have been tortured for thinking and acting like an Indian.

Her case seems typical to me. Alcoholic and abusive parents pass their dysfunctionality to their children. One or two may survive while the rest succumb. Outsiders blame the victim without understanding the problem.

This also suggests why Indians cling to reservations and perpetuate the cycle. For mediocre students who have been abused and lack self-esteem, venturing to a college or city is almost unthinkable. To them this is alien territory, not the natural progression it is for many Americans.

It would be like my going to Russia to change my life. In theory I could do it, but I'd be likely to fail and I'd be too scared to try. I don't have the knowledge or tools to succeed in Russia any more than a troubled Indian teen has what it takes to succeed off the reservation.

The teen could do it with help and training too, of course. But not with platitudes such as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" or "try harder." That isn't "help," it's the opposite. It's America's rugged individualism aka social Darwinism: Survive on your own or die.

For more on the subject, see Spirit Level Is Low in US, Poverty Makes People Sick, and Intergenerational Trauma = PTSD.

Below:  "Renelle White Buffalo, senior in integrated studio arts, works on her drawings at her apartment. She said her art is influenced by her mother, as her mother had a monster just like everyone else, and alcohol fueled her monster and it eventually took over." (Karuna Ang/Iowa State Daily)

Roger: Let Indians commit suicide

Another day, another entry in the Rand/Stossel termination agenda for Indians:

American Indians Putting Faith in Government 'Help'?

By Chuck RogerIn New Mexico's state capitol, a local newspaper reports that Santa Fe Indian School students are "watching with bated breath" for Governor Susana Martinez to sign a bill that would create "culturally sensitive programs" designed "to help Native American communities deal with teen suicides."

The situation is tragic on two levels.

First, the high suicide rate attests to social problems endemic in Indian communities. But the second tragedy is even worse, for it compounds the first. No one, especially American Indians, should put faith in government to "deal with" anything, much less something as horrible as suicide. Government has consistently worsened the plight of the Indians with poverty-perpetuating, will-weakening, assimilation-discouraging "help."

The bill in question, sponsored by a Democrat state senator, would also provide resources to address general mental health issues of New Mexico's Indians. The effort would typify the emotional liberal response to problems like the ills that afflict Indian communities.

It doesn't seem to occur to liberals that the solution to social problems in isolated communities could be to end the isolation. Psychologists have understood for decades that increased self-reliance, encouraged by the rewards earned by self-reliant people, has the power to eliminate depression. Yet big-government liberals incessantly fall back on feel-good but ineffective "interventions" orchestrated by governmental central planners.Comment:  No doubt you recognize the key codewords here: End the isolation. Stop discouraging assimilation. In other words, Indians should give up their land, their reservations, and their sovereignty. They should forget about the treaty rights that guarantee them certain benefits.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution and various court decisions say. We stripped them of their land, cultures, languages, and religions. Now let's strip them of the money that was supposed to compensate them. They're only "dirty redskins," so who cares if we rob them twice? We'll rob them as many times as it takes until they shrivel up and die.

Pay close attention to what this Jolly Roger is saying. Indians are suffering high rates of suicide, but let's do nothing to help them. Maybe they'll help themselves and maybe they won't. If they don't, problem solved. Once they're dead we can take their remaining land and resources without listening to them whine about their "rights."

This is pure social Darwinism: survival of the fittest. Those that overcome depression on their own deserve to live; those that don't deserve to die. Roger is more concerned about his free-market ideology than saving actual lives. If self-reliance isn't the cure-all he thinks it is...oh, well, they're only savages. No big loss to humanity.

Rugged individualists kill themselves

Roger reguritates his free-market propaganda without a shred of evidence except a vague reference to psychologists. This is anti-intellectual, asinine nonsense for several reasons.

1) We could point to many, many government programs that work for all Americans. The military. Water and electricity provision. Homeland security. The highway system. Food inspections. The air-traffic system. Public universities. National, state, and local parks. Public libraries. Home mortgage deductions. Student loans. Etc., etc., etc.

Roger says we shouldn't put faith in government to "deal with" anything. Does he really think we should privatize our troops, our highways, and our libraries? Or is he too stupid to realize that government does many things well? (Social Security has lower costs than comparable private programs, for instance.)

2) Roger obviously knows nothing about suicide. Guess which states have the highest suicide rates?

Ranking America's Mental Health:  An Analysis of Depression Across the StatesIn terms of 2004 suicide rates, the District of Columbia was the lowest, followed by New York and Massachusetts. Alaska had the highest suicide rate, followed by Nevada and New Mexico.Here are the ten most suicidal states:

West Virginia
Arizona
Colorado
Utah
Idaho
Wyoming
Montana
New Mexico
Nevada
Alaska

Colorado and New Mexico are arguably swing states, but every other state on the list is solidly conservative. These are exactly the states where people are supposedly rugged individualists. Where people supposedly hate the nanny state--when they're not receiving subsidies for their water, grazing, or mineral rights, that is--and rely on themselves. To put it bluntly, self-reliant people have the highest suicide rates in America.

It's not hard to understand why. Struggling to survive on your own is tough. The cure for feelings of loneliness and isolation isn't more loneliness and isolation. It's a caring web of social connections--the kind memorialized in the phrase "It takes a village."

Not everyone can live up to America's cowboy standard: the "virtue" embodied in John Wayne and Ronald Reagan. If you lived in a conservative state where they preached God and family while people lied and cheated, you'd feel whipsawed by the hypocrisy also. If it was bad enough, you might become depressed or suicidal too.

Suicide prevention works

3) Roger obviously knows nothing about suicide prevention programs, either. An article appearing the same day outlines the facts Roger is ignorant of:

Response plan needed on suicide epidemicMontanans may never know exactly what caused the spike in suicides among the youth of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation--but we have a good idea of how to stop it.

The first step is to urge the U.S. Public Health Service to return to the reservation and provide much-needed counseling and mental health care. The next step is to see to it that these services are available to Fort Peck families on a long-term basis as part of a comprehensive safety net that catches these kids well before they fall through the cracks.

The heartbreaking spate of suicides by Native American children in Montana reached horrendous levels last school year, when five Poplar Middle School children killed themselves and 20 more students attempted suicide on the Fort Peck reservation.

Assiniboine and Sioux leaders recognized the situation for what it is--a crisis--and in response to their crisis declaration, federal emergency teams came to the reservation to shore up mental health services, study the situation and make some recommendations.

And for 90 days, there were no suicides.Duhhh. Unless you're a stupid twit, you know that mental health problems aren't solved with "self-reliance." They're solved with mental health services that require money. These services help military veterans with PTSD and they help others the same way.

If you think they don't work, let's throw our traumatized soldiers out on their asses and let them fend for themselves. If this treatment is good enough for Indians, it's good enough for everyone.

Sheesh.

For conservatives like Roger who are ignorant of American history, we've tried allocating the Indians' land...forcing them to assimilate...and terminating their tribes. None of these policies worked. Don't take my word for it, dumbasses, look it up in the historical record. Stop pontificating about your ivory-tower theories and start dealing with reality.

There's no proven connection between government services for military veterans, the elderly, or women with children and suicide rates. There's no proven connection between government services for Indians and suicide rates, either. If "unearned" money made people weak and helpless, millions of trust-fund babies would be committing suicide. That's obviously not the case.

For more on the subject, see

Didier:  Stop protecting the weak
Tea Party leader posts racist "satire"
Why Americans hate welfare
Capitalism gets comeuppance
Westerners = freeloaders

Below:  Cowboy Bush grows weak and helpless living off government handouts (his presidential pension).

What reservations are really like

Here's what one of the poorest reservations in the US is like according to a resident:

Vi Waln:  Don't believe everything in the media aboutI live on the Rosebud Reservation. I see many things that happen here on a daily basis. There are many problems our people are faced with every single day of their lives. Many people will not come to the reservations because of awful things they read in the newspapers.

Still, I feel my home is one of the safest places in the world to live. Does it seem strange to you that I think an Indian Reservation is a safe place to live? If so, then you might be like one of those bitter sounding writers who do not live on the reservation and therefore do not have a clue.

Not all of us living on the reservation are unemployed and languishing at home with a bottle of booze. Many of us are actually gainfully employed. We pay our own bills on time with the money we earn from a real job. And many of us have learned how to prepare delicious meals with the commodities we receive from our tribal warehouses each month.

Not all of our children drop out of school. There are a number of young people who work very hard to earn high grade point averages in preparation for study at a college or university. Many organizations have been established to serve the young people living on reservations and they are staffed by educated, sober adults who have the best interest of our children at heart.

Not all of us are subjecting our families to an ocean of alcohol in our homes. Many Lakota people are sober and pray every day, sometimes several times a day. Prayers are offered for many things, including other human beings who we don’t even know personally. Many of the ceremonial people living right here on my Indian Reservation offered prayers after the weekend shooting in Arizona which killed several people, including a child.Comment:  Non-Natives keep trying to promote a negative view of reservation life and Natives keep trying to correct it. These false or stereotypical views come up in the media regularly--for instance, in Mines Minister Blames the Victim and Cameron:   Lakota = "Dead-End Society."

I don't think SCALPED writer Jason Aaron is bitter, but he's one of the writers who doesn't live on a reservation and therefore doesn't have a clue. Nor do his readers because of people who claim Aaron is exploring reservation life, showing readers what it's like, or educating them. He isn't doing any of those things. He's presenting a false and stereotypical portrait of reservations and passing it off as honest and real.

For more on the subject, see Native Women = Whores in SCALPED and Okay to Stereotype in Noir Comics?

Below:  I wonder what the average body count per issue is in SCALPED?

Poverty makes people sick

The grinding reality of growing up poor

By Petula DvorakSome people think that this kind of childhood wreaks greater havoc on a child than almost any Pat Conroy-child-abuse scenario.

"Poverty trumps mistreatment, absolutely," said Sheryl Brissett-Chapman, executive director of the National Center for Children and Families in Bethesda.

She explained that being extremely poor grinds down a child, that poverty gets into the brain and under the skin. Literally, actually.

Studies show that increased levels of cortisol, a chemical produced in the body as a result of stress, can seriously affect a child's brain development, stunting memory and disrupting learning patterns.

The stress of living in poverty gnaws at children. Poor kids who took part in one study were found to have elevated levels of cortisol in the morning. When the children showed up at a high-quality, small-group day-care center, where they bonded well with their teacher, the cortisol levels dropped. By afternoon, they were similar to the morning levels of their middle-class counterparts.

So, essentially, being poor costs a kid at least half a day in the classroom just to get the brain back to normal.Comment:  Indians are poor because the white man stole their land and herded them onto reservations. Poverty causes stress that's worse than child abuse. This--not the "primitiveness" of Indian cultures or the "socialist" nature of Indian societies--is what causes the "plight of the Indian." Poverty leads to violence, crime, substance abuse, depression, and suicide. And poor performance in school, of course.

For more on the subject, see Intergenerational Trauma = PTSD and Only Whites Blame "Intergenerational Trauma"?

Should tribes allow immigration?

Michael Cooke recently asked the perennial question about what's the correct term for Indians:Here's a simple question. Is 'Indian' as derogatory a word as the "N' word? I ask this because I was told by a friend, not you, that this IS THE CASE! And yet I see native Americans using the word. I also see Black Americans owning the "N" word too--so I'm unclear.

Having read the piece you linked to... Do some tribes believe the word "Indian" is horrible and derogatory because I know my friend got that impression from a Native American.

If the person claiming to be Native American looks as White as you or I, is it still wrong to ask "how much"? Would a Native American not ask?Some postings about the correct terminology:

"Indian" term dying out?
"American Indian" vs. "Native American"

Canadians dislike the term "Indian" for some reason. Liberals who think they're being PC sometimes prefer "Native American." A few Indians disdain the term "Indian" because they consider it a mistake. But the vast majority of Indians use the term "Indian" to describe themselves. It's perfectly acceptable in polite society.

Asking "how much" is about as impolite as asking any personal question. You can do it with someone you know, but not a stranger.

It's complicated by the fact that membership in a tribe is a political decision, not a biological one. It's just like citizenship in any country. If a tribe says you're a member, that makes you an Indian. Even if you have little or no Indian "blood."

For more on the subject, see:

White man leads Indian tribe
Are pure-white Indians possible?
"Actual Indian" defined

The immigration question

This led to a more interesting question: If allowing immigrants to become citizens is good for the United States, is it also good for Indian nations? Why don't they open up their membership to "immigrants"--i.e., non-Indians who would contribute to the tribes in some way?‎"Indian" as a political construct. There are faux Indians that mean to thereby resist federal taxes, but if Indian is a political construct it's possible to give legitimate citizenship to tax resisters in theory?It's possible to give legitimate tribal citizenship to any white person, in theory. As my blog postings indicated.

But tribes have little or no incentive to do this, since it would dilute the power and wealth of existing Indians. So pundits who worry about this possibility are raising a straw-man argument.[T]he premise that that immigrants into tribes would dilute the power and the wealth? Are your sure? I mean...this argument is EXACTLY the racist anti immigrant argument forwarded in Arizona for why the USA cannot tolerate immigrants from Mexico, and I know it's not true for the nation at large. I doubt it is true for Tribes either.

Were white Americans introduced to Native tribes in a large scale, the main issue I see would be a dilution of tribal identity which is largely the purpose of being politically independent in the first place. The immigration I believe would enhance power and money: white tax resisters tend to have money to resent being taxed, often are business owners, and wield political power simply as a function of being white in a racist USA.Tribal identity is tied up with the Indians' wealth and power. But if you want to isolate the cultural effects, yes, it would dilute their identity also.

Tribes have a finite amount of land and receive a finite amount of treaty benefits from the government. Unlike a US city or the US economy, these things aren't easily expanded.

The value of immigration comes from new ideas and energy, not from raw numbers of people. Tribes are already interacting with the rest of America and getting new ideas and energy.

In fact, two-thirds of Indians live off the reservation these days. So Indians themselves act as the bearers of new ideas and energy. They don't need outsiders moving onto their land and diluting their cultural and financial resources.

Interaction is good

True, some tribes have been too insular in the past, but that's starting to change. Gaming, tourism, and other businesses are forcing them to deal with the outside world. So is the Internet and other new media.

This changing environment is causing effects equivalent to immigration. Because of Twilight, the Quileute tribe has begun promoting its arts and festivals to fans. Because of Losing It with Jillian, the Yavapai-Apache Nation now has access to fitness trainers and online health plans.

Controlled access to the mainstream is good. Uncontrolled access would be bad. The US has some 300 million people, so 10 million immigrants won't seriously harm its culture. A typical tribe might have 3,000 members, so 100 non-Indian casino workers wouldn't seriously harm its culture. But non-Indians have the potential to dominate or overwhelm a tribe, so letting people in is problematical.

Your white tax resisters would add the wrong kind of power. They'd seek to control or dismantle tribal governments, not support and enhance them. Tribes don't need that kind of "help."

They also don't need criminals who would use sovereignty as a shield against prosecution. Or speculators who would try to buy or sell their land. (Been there, done that.) Or wannabes who would turn their religious rites into self-help seminars.

Most Indians are already "living in two worlds." Education and jobs are tugging them away from the reservation. Family and cultural ties are tugging them back to the reservation. They can decide for themselves if more access would be beneficial. They don't need wise guys like us telling them to open their lands to immigrants.

For more on tax resisters, see Anti-Government Extremists Pose as "Indians"and Self-Proclaimed "Indian" Secedes from City. For more on the subject in general, see Should Indians Cling to Reservations?

Teepee for Oregon's Tea Party?

Why Did We Select the TeePee for the TP?Through all that's happened since, that tent emerged as a symbol. The inhabitants of that home were people of courage who lived in tune with the parameters of nature. And, people who got really upset when the cowardly, smelly, money-worshipping, selfish Europeans destroyers of all that is natural came along to turn paradise into steel-framed buildings, garbage dumps, chemical factories and rat-infested alleys populated by folks whose descendants, when called upon, saved the whole damned world twice, so far.

It's just like the tea parties. These folks are upset by the cowardly, smelly, money-worshipping, selfish European socialists who have brought their fatal political disease to the New World. Collective ownership of the assets of the nation. Professors of Propaganda in our schools and universities. And, now comes Obama and Friends. They were the last straw.

Comment:  This would be a good April Fool's joke, but it's not April 1. Therefore, I'll take it seriously for one blog posting.

Let's ignore the fact that the teepee is blatantly stereotypical. And that it has nothing to do with the state of Oregon. That it's a bad choice for that reason goes without saying.

Appropriating Indians as the symbol of liberty goes back to before the Boston Tea Party. It's a perennial subject in American politics. I wrote about it in The Political Uses of Stereotyping.

But this rationale is one of the stupidest ones I've ever seen. It's as if these teabaggers are admitting, "We're totally ignorant about the last 500 years of history and politics. We don't have a clue what we're saying. We're literally so stupid that we're making stuff up out of thin air."

Facts for the fanatics

Here are a few points for these idiots to consider:

The European invasion of the Americas began in 1492. Socialism didn't exist until the late 19th century, when Marx and Engels invented the economic theory. That's almost a 400-year gap.

Many of the first settlers were financed by business consortia that wanted a return on their investment. Others were financed by monarchies that wanted a return on their investment. The common denominator was their greed, which the teabaggers even acknowledge with the words "money-worshipping" and "selfish."

This is the pure capitalist ethos at work, dummies. It has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with our present economic system. You know, the "greed is good" system championed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush? The one that led to Reagan's and Bush's recessions, Reagan's and Bush's deficits, Reagan's savings and loan crisis, Bush's mortgage crisis, etc.?

Taking the world's land, gold, oil, and other resources is what this ethos is all about. That was true in 1492 and it's true today (with Enron, Goldman Sachs, British Petroleum, et al.). This ethos of greed and avarice is what destroyed the Indians, not "socialism."

European states were the opposite of socialist throughout the imperialist period. Instead of redistributing the assets of the elite (themselves), they kept these assets. A small aristocracy of kings, nobles, churchmen and merchant princes controlled most of Europe's wealth and power.

The "socialists" weren't the kings and czars of places like France and Russia. You know, the people who initiated and oversaw Europe's global conquests? They were the commoners who overthrew the kings and czars and put themselves in charge.

Duhhh.

"Professors of Propaganda"? What does that have to do with 500 years of European colonization? Do teabaggers think left-wing universities have existed for centuries? And that these universities were in charge of Europe's foreign policy? Idiocy.

Teabaggers are today's Indians?!

Let's look at more facts these idiots are too dumb or dishonest to admit. Conservatives have complained about tribes having communal cultures, jointly owning their land, and being the last bastion of socialism. Because there's some truth to this, Indians are overwhelmingly Democratic, voted 9 to 1 for Obama, and are still among his biggest supporters. Meanwhile, the Tea Party movement is financed by the billionaire Koch brothers and publicized by billionaire Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News. It's increasingly merging with the Republican Party because both groups have similar goals.

So the Tea Party movement stands for "free markets" (i.e., handouts for corporations and the rich). And Obama, Indians, and the rest of the Democratic Party stand for helping their fellow humans (i.e., "socialism"). But Oregon's teabaggers think a teepee is the right symbol for them?! Maybe Oregon's Democrats should adopt Milton Friedman or the Wall Street bull as their symbol, because that would be just as appropriate and valid.

Sheesh.

For more of this ridiculous "teabaggers = Indians" meme, see Indian on Tea Party T-Shirt and Teabaggers = Indians?! For more on the Tea Party in general, see:

Conservative rallies = white self-pity
Tea Party believes in taking
Angry white Christians want the country back

And the proverbial much more.

Jewish politicians want Indians to "disappear"

Indians Should “Never Forget”

By Harold A. MonteauIn 1996 I was invited to sit on a panel at a meeting of the National Association of State Legislators. Also speaking on the panel was a Jewish American politician from New York who has gone on to higher offices in his career and is still fighting a war of "containment" against the Indians in his state. When it came his turn to speak he proclaimed that the answer to the problems between the various states and Indian Tribes was "that Indians should take their rightful place in America and disappear into the mainstream." I stopped him, which I admit was rude, and told him that I was not going to sit there and let him state that the solution to Indian-State issues is that we Indians should "disappear." I told him that in taking that position he was advocating the genocide of American Indians. He became enraged, shouting "genocide!!…that's Buchenwald, that's Auschwitz! How dare you?" I responded that his position was a call to end the existence of American Indians, just slower than the murder of the Jewish people by the Nazi. He just could not believe that someone would equate his brilliant "final solution" for the "Indian Problem" to genocide.

Jewish people do not own the term "genocide." They certainly have every right to invoke their mantra, "Never Forge" when reminding the world that the Nazi tried to murder every Jew in Europe. However, the Jewish People must recognize that we American Indians also experienced murder our holocaust with some putting the casualty number at 20 Million or more. We have as much right to remind the world to "Never Forget" the holocaust that was perpetrated on the American Indian People and how, in this day and age, we still must fight off attacks on our homelands, our sovereignty, our people and our "race" that are meant to bring about our "disappearance."Why this isn't just one person's problem:I wrote in this column several years ago about how the Jewish politicians from the State of Connecticut were inflicting their own "Final Solution" on the tribes in that state by attacking the right of the Schagticoke and Eastern Pequot Tribes to Federal Recognition. Connecticut's Senior Senator, Joe Lieberman, is an Orthodox Jew who remained in silent "complicity" while it happened. The Jewish Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal (who insults all our Veterans when he lied about his mythical Vietnam military service) now is seeking the Democratic nomination to run for the U.S. Senate. Having made a name for himself as an Indian Fighter, he just may be elected. No tribe should support him. To do so might be good politics but morally, it would be an aberration. He has been successful in "disappearing" Indian Tribes that had every right to Federal Recognition. His actions against the Connecticut Tribe represented an unprecedented state interference in the Federal-Tribal relationship. He used the backdoor influence he had with the Republican Party to get President Bush and his Interior Secretary to "de-recognize" two tribes that had just received Federal Recognition after decades of petitioning. In doing so he put those tribes "under such living conditions as are designed to bring about their disappearance as a distinct people."

The quoted language is the from the "Conventions against Genocide" that were put in place after the Jewish Holocaust during World War II. The Conventions recognize that murder is only one way to achieve the "disappearance" of a people.Comment:  A nastier response to the unnamed Jewish politician might be:The solution to the "Jewish problem" is for Israelis to take their rightful place in the world and disappear into the mainstream. I.e., disband the country of Israel and disperse. After you do that and prove it works, we'll consider disbanding our Indian nations. Until then, no.A commenter on Facebook adds:Rob and Harold: to be at all fair, the article should mention the countless Jews, including politicians, who have supported Native nations and causes over the years.Good point. Consider it mentioned.

I think Monteau is criticizing only the politicians who demand support for Israel but won't provide equal support for America's Indian nations. That applies to non-Jewish as well as Jewish politicians.

Incidentally, it's hilarious seeing anti-Indian crusader Blumenthal caught in a bald-faced lie. Yeah, I cured the common cold...or had a common cold...or whatever. I hope the Democrats can find a better candidate who isn't a DINO (Democrat in name only).

For more on the subject, see Should Indians Cling to Reservations? and Genocide By Any Other Name....

Cameron: Lakota = "dead-end society"

Avatar director James Cameron joins Amazon tribe's fight to halt giant dam

By Tom PhillipsCameron said witnessing indigenous ceremonies and meetings in the Amazon had made him reflect on the plight of the North American Indians and inspired him to attempt to give the "global consciousness… a heads up."

"I felt like I was 130 years back in time watching what the Lakota Sioux might have been saying at a point when they were being pushed and they were being killed and they were being asked to displace and they were being given some form of compensation," he said. "This was a driving force for me in the writing of Avatar–I couldn't help but think that if they [the Lakota Sioux] had had a time-window and they could see the future… and they could see their kids committing suicide at the highest suicide rates in the nation… because they were hopeless and they were a dead-end society–which is what is happening now–they would have fought a lot harder."Adrienne Keene of the Native Appropriations blog responds to this quote:Wow, James Cameron. Wow. So, the contemporary Lakota are "hopeless" and a "dead-end society"? And the generations of fighting against colonialism and continued oppression weren't and aren't fighting hard enough? Talk about ignorance. He makes it seem like the Lakota just rolled over and let their land be taken away. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Ugh. So hear that Natives? We should have just fought harder, and the state of our Native nations would be different. Right.Some comments about this on Facebook:Just pisses me right off...glad I did not see his stupid movie. It was full of stereotypes anyways....JERK.

James Cameron will never get another cent of my money. Sorry SOB. Proud to be Lakota!

I will never see another of his movies. Just don't like him in general. Did not see Avatar.Comment:  Someone asked if Cameron meant his remarks figuratively and someone else said no, he meant them literally. I don't know about that.

Cameron may have meant the kids who commit suicide feel they're in hopeless or dead-end situations. That isn't the same as saying the whole society is hopeless or dead-end.

On the other hand, many people do think Indian reservations are hopeless, dead-end places. So Cameron may have meant what he said.

It's a common figure of speech to say, "If I'd known x, I would've done y." For instance, "If I'd known my blind date was a supermodel, I would've driven twice as fast to meet her." When people say something like this, they don't mean they'd literally do what they didn't do if given another chance.

Nor do I think anyone has ever accused the Lakota of being soft on resistance. Considering they fought on until they were massacred at Wounded Knee, I don't see how anyone could've expected them to do more.

On the other hand, maybe Cameron was seduced by his moviemaking. Maybe he really thinks his Na'vi offer a lesson for indigenous people. Something like, "If you're as smart and brave as my fictional warriors were, you too could win against the forces of imperialism."

Never mind that the Na'vi probably should've lost against the Terran military--even with the help of Jake the white savior. It was a fluke that Jake encountered and was able to tame the giant Toruk, giving him the clout to unite the tribes. That Trudy turned her gunship against Quaritch's ship. And that the Pandoran wildlife joined the battle at just the right moment.

I think it's obvious what Cameron wanted to say: that the traditional Lakota would be unhappy if they saw their people today. I think he chose his words poorly; he stupidly used a phrase that sounded like blaming the victim. But I don't think he meant what people inferred.

For more on the subject, see Brainstorming Avatar 2 with Indians and Dam Suspended with Cameron's Help.

Below:  "James Cameron talks to a Xingu leader in Brazil." (Atossa Soldani/EPA)

What Indians have and need on the rez

Top 10 on the RezTop Five Things Indians Can’t Seem To Do Without:

1--The latest powwow guide.
2--Pendleton blankets.
3--A pickup truck or SUV.
4--Rez dogs.
5--Gripes about tribal councils.

Top Five Big Issues Facing Tribes Today:

1--Access to telecommunications.
2--Energy and other infrastructure.
3--Health care.
4--Law enforcement in reservation communities.
5--Understanding of how tribal governments work [by non-Indians].Comment:  See the original article for a detailed explanation of these items.

Sherman Alexie on racism

Native American Writer Details Personal StruggleThe beginning days of high school posed Alexie the toughest challenges to his identity. He was alienated by his own people who felt betrayed by Alexie for leaving the reservation, and he was initially forced to cope with the racist attitudes of white students in his high school.

Nevertheless, as Alexie began to befriend some white students, he discovered that fear was one of the root causes of their racism.

“They literally thought I was going to pull out a bone arrow and shoot them,” Alexie said.

Although Alexie struggled with stereotypes and preconceived notions of what it meant to be Native American throughout his youth, he noted that the people who had done the most damage to him were other Native Americans.

Alexie specifically addressed Native American youths in the audience, telling them that it is “okay” to leave the reservation in search of a better life, even amidst the criticisms of tribe members and other races.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Sherman Alexie on Stereotypes and All About Sherman Alexie.

Below:  The reality...



...and the perception.

Kay thinks Indians should assimilate

Here's another racist screed by Jonathan Kay, one of the foremost Indian-bashers in Canada's conservative National Post. I'll let him have his say before I demolish some of his arguments.

Jonathan Kay on aboriginal assimilation, and the best Canadian policy book written in the last 10 yearsI don’t usually praise the work of Marxists. But in the case of Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, I’ll make an exception.

Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation—excerpted elsewhere on this page—is the most important Canadian policy book I’ve read in the last decade.

It is one thing for National Post columnists to criticize land claims and native self-government. We can be sloughed off as reactionaries—or even racists. But such ad hominems don’t work in the case of Widdowson and Howard, overt socialists whose theories are based on years of field work in the Northwest Territories.

Like many anthropologists working with aboriginals, the authors were pressured to act as advocates for native cultural empowerment. But what they saw—sex and child abuse, violent crime, economic and social dysfunction, suicide, substance abuse and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome—soured them on the mantras being peddled by their peers. The most urgent task, they conclude in their book, isn’t heaping more powers and cash on band leaders, but providing natives with the education and cultural formation required to make it in modern society, so they can leave the reserves behind. Widdowson and Howard don’t call this goal “assimilation”—but I do.Comment:  The Widdowson and Howard book is the same one discussed in this video.

Here are Kay's previous screeds against Indians:

Kay:  Reserves are "bastions of...decrepitude" and "hellholes"

Canada's aboriginals are "sedentary welfare-collectors"

Kay:  Indians are preserving "hunter-gatherer traditions"

Kay is a two-time "winner" of my Stereotype of the Month Loser award. I don't know if anyone else has won twice. Congratulations, Jonathan...you may be headed for a third award.

The plot to preserve Native cultures

The Debate:  Aboriginal Identities at a Crossroads?1.2 million strong and growing, but with more than half of Canada's First Nations now living off-reserve, can the traditional way of life be maintained?

Comment:  This is an hour-long show on the issue of assimilation. It's based on the book Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation. The book argues that unscrupulous lawyers are manipulating Indians into cling to traditions that they'd be better off giving up.

The show starts with the lawyers' role, but quickly segues into the core issue. Namely, whether Indians are better off with a traditional or modern lifestyle or some combination thereof.

In my Stereotype of the Month contest, I've refuted arguments like the authors' many times. No doubt they have a point about tribes resisting change, but their basic premise is false. No one is suggesting that Indians choose traditional knowledge or training over a college education, for instance. These days Indians can participate in the global economy and in their local traditions.

Worth watching

In the show, the authors of Disrobing debate with representatives of the First Nations community. It's a pretty lively affair--certainly better than this year's presidential debates. The parties engage each other's arguments and moderator Steve Paikin keeps them focused. (By giving everyone a chance to speak, asking followup questions, and interrupting people if necessary, Paikin does a superb job of moderating. Every debate should be this well moderated.)

Overall, I'd say the video is worth listening to. I listened to it in the background while I worked on other computer tasks.

Mile Post 398 and poor Indians

Mile Post 398 seems like a good response to the people who ask why Indians cling to reservations.

The movie presents the circumstances of what appears to be a typical reservation family. It's worth noting how limited the Indians' options are.

Cloyd and his wife are barely making ends meet despite working full-time jobs. There's no casino to lavish per-capita payments on them. Then Cloyd loses his job. Now what?

Remember, these people are poor to begin with. So what are they supposed to do? Do they use their high-speed Internet access to research job prospects in far-off cities? Do they hire a moving van (or perhaps a limousine) to whisk them across the country to a new home? Do they charter a cab (or perhaps a helicopter) to convey them to the college 50 miles away so they can learn a new profession?

No, they don't do any of these things because they're poor. They muddle through as best as they can. Perseverance helps, but so does luck. Cloyd manages because he tries, but also because he happens to meet Ray, who happens to know of a clerical job in a distant super-store.

Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps is a lot easier when you're surrounded by wealth rather than poverty. When you have a good education and health care and thousands of jobs within a mile of you. No amount of "Get over it" slogans can compensate for a reservation's tough conditions.