Final Thoughts, Opinions, and Goodbyes!

Ok, for my final post I just want to say that I enjoyed this class so much! I loved reading all the great Native American writers and learning about all the current issues and perspectives surrounding the topic of contemporary Native American life. And I learned so much. When I started this class, like most people, I knew next to nothing, but probably thought I knew more than most "average" Americans. Also, probably like most people, I quickly learned that everything I thought I knew about Native Americans was pretty much wrong. But that's the beauty of it! Now I can say that I actually do know a little bit about current Native American issues, theories, perspectives, writers, and literature, which is great!

As for specifics, I guess I would say that what I learned about half way through the class was just how complicated the Native American experience is, as evidenced by the varying perspectives, sometimes conflicting, that are held and set for by the Native writers themselves. But also that there are a lot of similarities between all the writers we read. I really enjoyed how the readings were laid out, and I'm not sure but there seemed to be some kind of underlying progression. Or perhaps not. But anyway, my favorite writers and readings were Thomas King's The Truth About Stories, Paul Chaat Smith's Everything You Know About Indians Is Wrong, and Scott Richard Lyons's X-Marks.

My only suggestion for next time would be to maybe utilize some more Native American music. Or other kinds of art. Like paintings, sculptural, or jewelry, or something like that, and try to tie it in somehow, haha. Ok, I'm so close to being done that I can't even focus... (Done with school that is) Plus, I still need to finish a final paper!!! So i'm going to cut this short. Why does it always seem like there is far too much to do and never enough time to do it all?

But, before I go, I just want to share a picture a Native American friend of mine posted on Facebook a little while ago. I thought it was interesting, considering the content about photography that we covered earlier in the semester and the fact that Native children were taken from there homes to be educated at boarding school that also came up here and there. Anyway, this picture is of a group of Native children at a boarding school. It's pretty crazy.

But, so i don't leave on a sad note like that, I guess I'd also like to share a few Native American paintings I came across during my research for my final project. The interesting part about them though is that they are collaboration pieces between a Native American painter named Lomawywesa and a Celtic painter named Jack Dauben. 

Thanks for the awesome!!! : )

Russel Means: Welcome to the Reservation

This week I just want to share a 90 minute documentary that one of my friends on Facebook shared with me. She is a Native American and the documentary is, essentially, a long lecture from Russel Means. In the video Means speaks about how, due to the negligence of our ancestors and the negligence of ourselves, we have allowed the United States to turn into one giant reservation. He speaks of how the corruption that plagues the U.S. today is just an evolution of the corruption of yesterday. He speaks of history, of corruption, of current issues that we must deal with. He speaks of how the idea of a republic came from the Iroquois league, he speaks of how we have allowed our republic to become bought out, and thus corrupted, by corporate and banking powers. He refers to U.S. politics as a single party with two names, whose only real difference is in their spending. He speaks of how America lacks culture and says that this is why we are so materialist minded. He also claims that Americans have lost their ability to think critically and with each generation it seems to get worse, further leading to a degradation of the American system as a whole as we become more and more irresponsible. He also states that this growing irresponsibility is also the reason why America is becoming less and less free. He also links this loss of freedom with the creation of corporations and the influence of private banks. Overall, it is a pretty radical perspective from one of the most well known Native Activists.

Please excuse the Alex Jones aspect of it however, haha. He's certainly not my favorite person and I do think he's a little overbearing and crazy at times, but nonetheless he does have some good points and regardless this is a great lecture by Russell Means.

Johnny Depp Greets the 30th Annual 2013 Gathering of Nations Pow Wow

This week I thought I'd share something that I stumbled across, yet again, on the Aboriginal and Tribal News Facebook page, and they were also, yet again, sharing a post from the White Wolf Pack Blog. I found the blog post interesting because of the post Dr. Morris shared with us like a week ago, about Johnny Depp playing Tonto in the new Lone Ranger film. The blog post is about the 30th Annual Gathering of Nations that just commenced this past April. Apparently, the gathering opened with a video greeting from none other than Johnny Depp. Also, the author of the White Wolf Pack blog even suggests that Depp's greeting may have been the highlight of the night. The author writes, "The 30th Annual Gathering of Nations closed last night, April 27, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, after another hugely successful run. It may have been what opened the gathering that generated the most excitement, though." The author then follows this statement with a description of what he was alluding too. The author writes, "In a video message, Johnny Depp, who plays Tonto in the upcoming Lone Ranger film, welcomed attendees to the massive pow wow and Native festival."

This is the video the author is referencing:



Additionally, I found the comment section rather interesting as well. For instance, many of the comments are positive and offer words of thanks and gratitude to Johnny for his greeting; however, there are also some who question the greeting, Depp's motives, and even posit that it is nothing more than a promotion for his upcoming film.

For example, Thunderhawk leaves this comment:

"From Bobby Thunderhawk Jones, narragansett indian nation... just wanted to thank you for entertaining us through the years, one of the best actors of all time.. many blessings".

Billie Kihega then leaves this comment:

"Mahwoomae always a pleasure to hear you speak, We will always love you and cherish your friendship and remember you forever your Comanche name suits you honorably and perfectly may this lifetime give you many blessings to you and your family love and peace your Numunuh sister Billie Kihega family, Udah hites."

But, then a few anonymous messages are also left. They read as follows:

"Why isn't Jonny Depp there in person--couldn't he take the time out of the whole year to show up--if he really cares wouldn't he have planned so that he could have made it...Also why did he speak of a "strange and unknown force"--why would it be strange to him--and why is it unknown to him if he really has the connection that he speaks of...Do you think that he only sent the video so as to try to promote the new movie that he is in-where he plays Tonto?--these are some things to consider about Johnny's message..."

"Strange and unknown force? Nature? And what a long list of names. Was this the academy awards? I hope he didn't leave anyone out that could be important for his career! Besides the people he named and the people inviting him to their gatherings, who here among you felt anything except a slight repulsion at the bad writing his 'people' stuck up on his screen? Sorry to be negative. I just think as transparent as this video promotion was, the saddest thing is all the wonderful people who fail to taste, smell and feel the sneering distaste this man obviously has for being paid to read this pathetic greeting card in his slowed down (insultingly) official voice. As someone who has always enjoyed his work as an artist/actor I have to say this performance was dismally disappointing. Johnny, your director should have made you do this over for something akin to emotion. You may be a shapeshifter but under the obvious meaning I think that the one who named you might not have been overly impressed with you either and perhaps he picked this name as an insult. lol."

So, based on those last two comments, I think it's safe to say that some people were not very pleased with the greeting, haha. I just thought this was an interesting glimpse into the controversy surrounding Johnny Depp at the moment, and Native American opinion on the matter, as highlighted by Dr. Morris in the Indigenous Rhetoric blog post entitled "The Tonto Controversy."

Equality-Of-Differences, Questioning the Community of Nations, and Ortiz's Poetry

There was so much that I enjoyed about the readings for this week, so I am going to attempt to cover many of them. To begin, with Lyons, I really liked the realistic element to his conceptualization of nationalism, concerning the Native context. I liked how he not only referenced other Native intellectuals’ ideas, but also continued to elevate the discourse by critically evaluating their positions at the same time. For example, his introduction and analysis of Taiaiake Alfred’s ideology concerning nationalism. As Lyons seems to see it, I also like Alfred’s initial position on the topic but struggle with some of his later statements. For instance, when Lyons reproduces Alfred’s quote “rather than setting out to destroy or replace the state or eject the colonizer, the end goal should be formulated as the achievement in positive terms of the creation of a new society” (112), I agree that such a position is great and makes perfect sense, and not just because I’m a non-native living in the U.S. but because it would be a disaster for Native Americans should they actually try to “destroy,” “eject,” or otherwise try to topple the U.S. government. I mean, come on, I’m sure anyone who understands the ridiculously over-inflated and over-funded U.S. military would understand how devastating it would be for them to decide that Native Americans were the new Terrorist group of choice. Therefore, the creation of a new society is far more intelligent, positive, and possible goal.

He also continues to build upon this discourse when he discusses Ronald Neizen’s The Origins of Indigenism, and the quotes “Indigenous peoples are not engaged in a liberation struggle that aspires primarily or exclusively toward nationalist or racial equality” and “Assimilation’ and ‘cultural genocide’ are the terms commonly used by indigenous leaders to describe the kind of censorious ‘equality’ that was often… imposed on them” (132). I also liked Lyons analysis and explication afterward, concerning his statement “If not a secessionist movement seeking a new state, or a civil rights movement demanding more inclusion, then that something would appear to be resistance against incorporation into the dominant culture” and his differentiation between “Equality-as-sameness” and “equality-of-differences” (133). However, just as he did with Taiaiake Alfred, he also critically analyses Neizen and states that:

it would be a mistake to suggest (as Neizen slightly does) that there isn't a politically separatist dimension to these otherwise cultural claims. More often than not, indigenous nationalism links the goals of equality-of-differences and cultural survival to the more conventional political goals that one would expect from any nationalist movement, from land rights to legal jurisdiction. Native nationalisms seek both cultural survival and political power, that is, both nationhood and nationality, and not just resistance to the dominant culture. (133)

The notion of equality-of-differences was of great interest to me. I mean, it makes perfect sense, because even in a group such as the Native Americans, or Indians, or whatever you want to call them, diversity is a defining factor. Being Native American certainly does not mean being the same as another Native American. There are many different languages spoken, varying cultural practices, and separate histories as well. However, they are still all united as well, by a shared relatedness between there different histories and experiences. Furthermore, aside from just an application to the Native American experience, I think this concept would be best applied to the entire world and all of its peoples, because the same differences and similarities exist between our languages, cultures, and histories. However, we are all still human at the end of the day, and our experience is related as such.

I thought the section entitled “New Societies” and the Nationalism Question” was extremely interesting with all of its references to contextualize the overall discussion of nationalism and the text in general. I was especially impressed with the length of that contextualization and the wide variety of references, including the University of Colorado-Boulder  firing Ward Churchill for his post-9/11 writings, the Dalai Lama attempting to explain that Tibet sought autonomy, not independence to the Chinese government, the founding of Israel and the dispossession of the Palestinians, the war in Iraq, the first female soldier to die in Iraq, and the nomination of Barak Obama for the presidency of the U.S. on behalf of the democratic party, among many other things. One of these things, like the notion of equality-of-differences intrigued me. This was question posed by “Peter Singer’s One World: The Ethics of Globalization and Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century,” which “asked if the community of ‘nations,’ even if separate and equal, wasn't problematic for the way it kept the world all too fragmented and disconnected to forge solutions to the common problems we share” (161). This question intrigues me because I've often had asked myself the same question, and I believe the answer is to that question is yes, the global community of nations, as it is currently set up, is indeed problematic concerning the pursuit of our contemporary global problems. I say that because one, the very set up we have is directly opposed to equality between nations; the United Nations security council and the U.S. right of supreme veto power shows this clearly. Because of this, nations or peoples who find themselves lacking support of the more powerful members of the international community will find themselves helpless against those that do receive such support. Israel and Palestine are perfect examples here, with Israel receiving full support from the U.S. and Palestine not only receiving no support but actually receiving indirect attacks on its sovereignty by the U.S. when they openly support Israel and its interests concerning the Israli-Palestinan conflict. Secondly, so long as we conceive of the world in terms of separate nations and thus peoples, we inadvertently allow for ideologies of us vs. them to manifest. Thus, instead of all the brilliant minds of all the worlds peoples working together for the common good of all the worlds peoples, we have various factions of peoples fighting each other over land and resources. Science and technology are thus employed on a large scale as a means through which to discover new ways of killing people. Meanwhile this innovative knowledge could be used to find new ways to care for the world’s people.

I also enjoyed the poetry aspect of this week’s reading, and would like to both share and discuss two of Simon J. Ortiz’s poems, from Woven Stone. Both poems touched me deeply. The first is “Right of Way," which may possibly be one of the saddest poems I have ever read. It both broke my heart and brought tears to my eyes. The poem reads:

The elder people at home do not understand.

It is hard to explain to them.

The question from their mouths

And on their faces are unanswerable.

You tell them, “The State wants right of way.

It will get right of way.”

They ask, “What is right of way?”

You say, “The State wants to go through

Your land. The State wants your land.”

They ask, “The Americans want my land?”

You say, “Yes, my beloved Grandfather.”

They say, “I already gave them some land.”

You say, “Yes, Grandmother, that’s true.

Now, they want more, to widen their highway.”

They ask again and again, “This right of way

That the Americans want, does that mean

They want all our land?”

There is silence.

There is silence

There is silence because you can’t explain,

And you don’t want to, and you know

When you use words like industry

And development and corporations

It wouldn't do any good.

There is silence.

There is silence.

You don’t like to think

The fall into a bottomless despair

Is too near and too easy and meaningless.

You don’t want that silence to grow

Deeper and deeper into you

Because that growth inward stunts you,

And that is no way to continue,

And you want to continue.

And so you tell stories.

You tell stories about your Peoples birth

And their growing.

You tell stories about your children’s birth

And their growing.

You tell the stories of their struggles.

You tell that kind of history,

And you pray and be humble.

With strength, it will continue that way.

That is the only way.

That is the only way.

(259 & 260)

The pain, the uncertainty, the confusion, the underlying, seething anger, the despair that this poem imparts is so powerful and so heart-wrenching. But at the same time, in that resistant survival that defines Native Survivance, the will to continue, the continual telling of stories; stories about birth, struggle, and history, and the humble strength which is garnered along the way is just amazing and inspiring. Similarly, Ortiz’s other short work I’d like to share, “Fight Back,” was equally awing to me. It reads:

This much is certain now… the people of Deetseyamah and Deechuna and Kahwaikah downstream from the Grants Uranium Belt do not have enough water any more for their few remaining cultivated fields and gardens, and the water they drink is contaminated by Grants and the past processing mills. The hanoh anxiously watch the springs at Ghoomi and Gaanipah. Their struggle will go on; there is no question about that.

We must have passionate concern for what is at stake. We must understand the experience of the oppressed, especially the racial and ethnic minorities, of this nation, by this nation and its economic interests. Only when we truly understand and accept the responsibilities of that understanding will we be able to make the necessary decisions for change. Only then will we truly understand what it is to love the land and peoples and to have compassion. Only when we are not afraid to fight against the destroyers, thieves, liars, exploiters who profit handsomely off the land and people will we know what love and compassion are. Only when the people of this nation, not just Indian people, fight for what is just and good for all life, will we know life and its continuance. And when we fight, and fight back those who are bent on destruction of land and people, we will win. We will win. (363)

In just two short paragraphs, Ortiz manages to represent the neocolonial/para-colonial reality of a group of native people who are beset by the intruding, exploitative, and negligent presence of a corporate power, outline a case for why we must begin to care or care more, and not just care, but act, in order to change this life for the better, and for us all, as it is not just a native cause or a minority cause that can be separated from the grand scheme of things, while also leaving the reader with a healthy dose of encouragement and hope! 

Native American Comedy

So I just realized that in all my ranting and raving the other day about American culture and its lack of appreciation for and ability to coexist with other cultures, I forgot to comment on the Native comedy, which I did enjoy. Therefore, I am going to comment on that in my second post for the week and share more examples of that comedy.

First of all, I want to say that I have always thought of comedy as one of the greatest aspects of humanity; along with music, they are perhaps my two favorite creations of human wit and creativity.  Like the music I enjoy most, I also favor socially conscious comedy as well. Among my favorite comedians are Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Joe Rogan, John Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. Like a Shakespeare play, where the fool seems to be the only person who can speak the truth without repercussion, as long as his truth is spoken as a joke, it would seem that the court jesters of today hold similar positions in our world. I have always been amazed by their ability to highlight or poke fun at aspects of our world, our societies, and even ourselves that are perhaps not funny at all and sometimes even quite depressing, all while making us think and laugh at the same time.

The Native comedians exemplified this same ability. Another aspect of comedy that amazes me is the ability of the comedian to poke fun at themselves, their situations, and the situations of those who share in their particular struggles, thus creating a kind of unity out of struggle that is manifest in the common laughter of a those beset by similar circumstances. For example, JR Redwater’s joke about Hollywood executives asking where his braids were, thus eliciting a round of laughter from a crowd who obviously understands that kind of stereotypical racism. Or, his joke about his name, the “white” people in the crowd who were taken aback by the pronunciation of the name, and the punch line of the joke about his father crafting the name with the help of a bowl of alphabet soup! Haha. Ah, comedic genius at its best. This ability to poke fun at stereotypes and racism in general is what makes comedy so special, and in my opinion necessary, because it allows us to laugh at ourselves, at humanity in general, and the absurdity of it all. Jim Ruel starts his routine off in a similar vein, joking, “I hope you guys enjoy my act… and the land… and the guilt… that was for the white people here.” Charlie Hill starts off strong too, joking about “white” people not knowing that Natives had a sense of humor, then delivering the punch line, “We never thought you were too funny either.” His joke about people asking him if he can speak “Indian” was hilarious as well, with him commenting that asking a Native  person if they can speak “Indian” is like asking a “white” person if they can speak “Caucasian.” His joking about the pilgrims as “illegal aliens” was great, especially when he says that they use to call them “white-backs.” This adds an extra element as well, by taking contemporary issues, like immigration, and presenting it from a different perspective, again poking fun at the ridiculous absurdity of it all.

In conclusion, I just wanted to share a preview clip from the “Going Native; The American Indian Comedy Slam: No Reservations Needed,” which was a comedy tour that featured seven Native American comedians, all of whom are previewed in this clip. Some of it may be repetitive, such as JR Redwater’s preview, which utilizes a bit from the video we already saw of him, but most of it is different and there are four comedians featured that we have not seen. So enjoy! 

Native Culture in Juxtaposition to U.S. Culture and How this Relates to the Title of the Blog

While reading Scott Richard Lyons’s second chapter of X-Marks, I couldn't help thinking of the title to this blog. I have yet to discuss it in the blog and thus I have never given an explanation of what I meant by it or why I chose that specific title. Perhaps its meaning is apparent and easily understood; however, I would like to take the time to discuss it now anyway, but in context with some of what Lyons discusses in the chapter.

I began thinking about the title while reading through a certain paragraph, which is, for the most part, written as follows:

Who wouldn't support the revival of Native cultures? They typically promote sustainability, produce happiness and equality, and are usually geared towards inclusion and justice. Traditional knowledge and philosophies, especially those concerned with environmental concerns, and democratic action are immensely valuable. And it is no small matter to detect a growing sense of pride in Native communities that for centuries have been among the most fragile in the world. Through our current cultural revival, imperialism is resisted, development is pursued, independence is growing, and people’s lives are improving. For these reasons alone Native cultures are most definitely worth reviving. (75 &76)

In any excerpt of such length there is obviously a tremendous amount of unpacking, but my mind could not help but focus in on the notion of Native culture as something that promotes “sustainability,” “happiness,” “equality,” “inclusion,” “justice,” “environmental concerns,” and “democratic action.” Along these lines, I must agree with Lyons; who wouldn't support a revival of such a culture? But at the same time, I could not help but also have the thought “who would destroy such a culture?” Of course, at this point we all know, generally speaking, what happened; a clash of cultures between European imperialists/colonialists and Native cultures. Hence the reason Native cultures have been in such a fragile mode for the last few centuries. I mean, come on, what is one to do against armies of gun wielding men who possess the arrogance of believing that they are the only people with a legitimate history, culture, and thus civilization?

As Lyons states, this is why the revival of Native cultures is so important, because it brings a kind of balance back to the world such that “imperialism is resisted, development is pursued, independence” grows, “and people’s lives” improve. But in this scenario, it is Native culture that represents that which is good. So what does this imply about the culture of the United States? If its culture was essentially responsible for the systematic destruction of Native culture, than is it ultimately a culture of imperialism? I mean, if you really study history, that does seem to be the picture that is painted. The genocide of Native peoples, the enslavement and later colonization of Native peoples, war after war with other Native people. Imperialism, colonization, capitalism, invasion, exploitation… etc.  The list goes on and on, and it runs like this all the way up until today, and sadly, it’s still pretty much running in the same direction. Lyons even alludes to this and references it directly in the text when he mentions “American support of the Saudi royal family, its militarization of the Middle East,” and “American-Israeli coalitions against Palestine and Lebanon” (82).

Thus I return to the title of the blog. What is, or was, the American dream? I had always thought, mostly because I was always taught, that the American dream was to create the world’s greatest democracy, where freedom, liberty, justice, and other such noble notions would abide and thrive. Now, ever since I was old enough to think for myself and read a book, I never really believed that. Because reality seems to dictate otherwise, and this reality seems to find itself manifest in the experiences, and thus the thoughts and writings, of all kinds of people. To further explicate my point, let us go through that list one more time:  first, in terms of sustainability, our system is one of the most unsustainable systems the world has ever known; second, in terms of happiness, equality, inclusion, and justice, our system certainly drops the ball quite often in these respects; third, in terms of environmental concerns, we seem to have relatively little care for the pollution and destruction that we cause to our surroundings; and fourth, in terms of democratic action, this has almost become a game of pure mass media manipulation. When looking at it from this perspective, it’s as George Carlin so brilliantly put it years ago, “It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

Now, having said all that, I do not want to be mistaken for a pessimist; I do not believe that this is all that America represents, nor do I believe that everyone here represents these negative qualities. But in terms of the system itself. It does seem to represent those negative aspects, and we have not been able to really change this a great deal in all the years of our “democratic actions.” Yes, much has changed; many things have gotten much better, and it was almost always due to grassroots action. I’m not taking anything away from that. It’s part of the reason I think the Idle No More campaign is awesome! I still have hope. How can we give up on that?

However, the dream of the U.S. representing the greatest thing on the face of the earth just does not vibe right with me. One, that is offensive to every other area of the planet and every other people. Hence the reason I despise statements like “God bless America.” And in terms of peace and justice, I also cannot get on board, because we are an extremely violent country who simply will not hesitate to invade whoever in order to maintain international “trade” and, well, business as normal. So, I feel like I am awake in this dream of America, which is really more like a nightmare, in many respects, but again, not all, and possessing this kind of perspective does feel someone like a nervous condition. Mostly, because everyone looks at you like your freaking nuts, haha. But just research the vast connections the corporation Monsanto has to our Federal Government, and you might be surprised, and hopefully a little disgusted, especially when you find out that our new Food and Drug czar is a former Monsanto  lobbyist. Understood in conjunction with Lyons reference to “healthy crops” (87), I do not think Monsanto is going to be so great in ensuring that our “crops” are as healthy as possible.

In conclusion I would like to end with a rather long excerpted paragraph from Lyons, mostly because I think it is awesome! So, here it goes:

Why were values invoked in the “Declaration of Indian Purpose”? Were the authors claiming a right to live in societies defined by different value systems than what they had witnessed in the dominant society, on that had placed them in boarding schools for the explicit purpose of changing their values? Were they insisting on the legitimacy of indigenous arrangements of value that would privilege, say, loving, respectful, honest, wise, humble, and truth-seeking personalities over the kinds of people most highly valued in a militarized, imperialist, consumer culture? A society prioritizing indigenous values would be a very different world than the one we all know today. This other world probably wouldn't value people like Donald Trump and Donald Rumsfeld so much as those kind, gentle elders that many of us have been fortunate to know during our lifetimes, and saying so is not to invoke a culture war or clash of civilizations. It is only to posit the small suggestion that perhaps the American Indian Chicago Conference had something quite ambitious in mind when they heralded the importance of Native values and called it a sign of complexity and an inherent human right. Perhaps what they meant was no more than a desire to live according to a value system of one’s own, but perhaps they held the more ambitious hope that others might come to value Native values as well. (109)

 I do believe this is happening, and I believe it is one of our greatest hopes. I also do not think that these values can be separated from human values; I simply believe that many of the people in this world have lost their way, and perhaps a little bit of their humanity as well. But I do not think it is too late to revive this humanity, and I do believe that Lyons is on to something here in suggesting that another society is possible and that “others might come to value Native values as well.” 

The Inter-relatedness between Lyons, Silko, and Early African Society

I thoroughly enjoyed the readings for this week. I enjoyed the inter-relatedness of both texts and the relationship the content seems to share with what I have been learning in my Women in African History class as well. For example, both Lyons’s and Silko’s discussion of identity intrigued me, as I have always found identity to be an interesting subject of meditation. I thought Lyon’s differentiation between people and identity to be genius, as well as his explication of identity as a social construct. He writes, “definitions of identity are not people; they are in fact things, things used to describe people, and always the invented fabrications of human beings. They are, to invoke the most ubiquitous of buzzwords, “constructions” (36). I have often thought about this myself, but to see it written is another thing all together; it seems to make it more legitimate in my mind for some reason, haha. I have thought about this when thinking of my own identity. For instance, while asking those age old questions like, “Who am I? What am I? What is my place here?” Whenever one asks themselves these question, they are always confronted by not only their own ideas of who, what, and why they are, but also the ideas of others, which are almost always influenced by the institutionalized societal definitions of those answers based on things like physical appearance, as both Lyons and Silko discuss in their texts.

For instance, according to the social construction of who and what I am, I am defined as a white male who happens to be an American, or perhaps American of Irish descent, or something along those lines. Now, I’m pretty sure I have discussed this before as well, but what if I disagree with this societal definition for myself? Is that even allowed? Well, of course, on a personal level. I can define myself as whatever I want. But as Lyons points out, that does not stop others from judging and defining you based on the hegemonic social construction of who and what you are according to the society, more often than not based on your physical appearance. For example, Lyons presents a story of his daughter being called “white” by another Indian boy who wishes to insult her due to her light skin tone. Similarly, Silko tells a story where she was removed from a picture with her schoolmates by a tourist for not looking Indian enough, again, because of her light skin tone. But this works in other was as well. For example, Africans of all kinds, from various areas, lineages, and cultures were lumped into one massive grouping of people termed as “black” by Europeans. This grouping still exists today and it attempts to define an even greater number of peoples from an even greater variation of places and cultures. For instance, one might be Ibo  Hausa, or Yoruba – three dominant, and distinct, ethnic groups in Africa – but  all classified simply as Nigerians. Or, one might be Nigerian, South African, Ethiopian, or Libyan, but  all classified as African. Still, one might be classified as African, Caribbean, or African American, but all be classified as “black.” And the same is true for any of the other grouping words, such as Asian, “white,” and Indian.

I then like the point Lyons makes when he states that, “Traditional Natives did not distinguish and Indian ‘race’ from other versions, although they did recognize different cultural groups” (56). Cultural is the only thing that I can see that truly sets us as distinct from one another. Race is really just a ridiculous concept. To quickly revisit the previous paragraph, what sets Nigerians apart from each other obviously has nothing to do with race; it is their unique cultures, as it is a matter of Ibo culture and language in juxtaposition with Hausa or Yoruba culture and language. Furthermore, similar to the Native Americans, Africans did not define themselves as either Africans or “black” before the Europeans arrived. There was no need to. They were simply Ibo  Hausa, or Yoruba, to name a few. But it is not just this relationship to identity that the readings shared with what I have been learning about traditional African culture, it is also the social systems that seem to relate. For example, Silko states that, “All food and other resources were strictly shared so that no one person or group had more than another” (65). Similarly, the same could be said of almost all early African societies. They were decentralized matrilineal gathering societies where women sustained most of the people on the food they gathered and thus garnered a great deal of respect. Men and women were considered equal and disrespect to ones fellow community member would anger the ancestors. Resources were widely distributed and shared because in these societies greed and the hoarding of resources were considered evil and offensive to the spirits. Lyons also remarks on this, saying that “Indigenism seeks a life where power is decentralized and people live in harmony with the natural world and each other” (64).

Also in relation to this, Silko discusses how people were judged in traditional Native society, by the elders, and what she says also relates to what I have learned about traditional African society. She writes,

My physical appearance seemed not to matter to the old-time people. They looked at the world very differently; a person’s appearance and possessions did not matter nearly as much as a person’s behavior. For them, a person’s value lies in how that person interacts with other people, how that person behaves towards the animals and the earth. (61)

It was, and still is, the same in the villages of Africa, where respect for the elders, for one’s community, and for the animals and environment that sustained that community were valued above all other things, including physical appearance, wealth, and even position within the community. Obviously, there are many similarities between indigenous peoples, regardless of time, place, distance, and difference, and perhaps this is why the indigenous community is able to incorporate into itself so many various peoples all over the world. But, also as I have said before, I am also aware that the experience and struggles of the various peoples in Africa are not exactly the same as those faced by the Native peoples here in the Americas.

In conclusion, I’d like to end with two more quotes, one from the Leslie Marmon Silko reading, “It is only a matter of time before the indigenous people of the Americas retake their land from the invaders, just as the African tribal people have repossessed nearly all the continent” (185), and one from one of my favorite independent underground Hip-Hop artists, Immortal Technique, “They ban ethnic studies claiming our culture will swallow them/ but you can’t conquer people and build a country on top of them/ and then feel offended when they breathe the same oxygen.”