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.” 

In this post I would like to share some images I found online. I just entered Native into the search engine on Facebook, and this is some of what I found. I thought it would be interesting to see how people on Facebook portray Native Americans or Native American related subject matter. What made me think of this was a post I stumbled across just scrolling through my own news feed. It was a post from a page called "Revolutionary Images." Here's the post: 

I thought this was an interested post. It's a perspective most people probably don't think of when Columbus is mentioned. However, if you really think about it, it is true, haha, and hilarious. This next image was taken from the page "Aboriginal and Tribal Nation News." I thought it was interesting because in one of our readings the author talked about the homeland security shirts that were often worn by non-native. 

The next image was taken from a page called "Native American Indian - Old Photos," and the description for the page reads, "A collection of public-domain photos, taken by many different photographers between 1845 and 1950, representing Native North American Indian folks from many Tribes and Nations." 

I thought this image was interesting because it reminded me of the images of natives who were made to pose in stereotypical fashions that aligned with American perception of the Indian at the time. I mean, come on, the picture has feathers in the hair and even a tomahawk. The next few photos are a little different. I found the rest on a page called "Native Humor." This page is run by Native Americans. Well, at least one of the administrators is Native; i'm not sure about the rest. One thing I've learned about contemporary Native American culture is that there is a great appreciation and connection to humor. So, I thought it would be interesting to display some images that were presented by a Native American Facebook page dedicated to Native American Humor. The pictures are as follows: 

Native American Content in Contemporary Music

Ok, so this week I just wanted to share a couple songs from two contemporary artists that in some way incorporate Native American content into their artistic expression. The first one is one of my favorite artists, Damian Marley. But the song is a collaboration that he did with an electronica artist, Skrillex. Damien Marley falls into that weird space of being Caribbean, Jamaican to be exact, and thus he is connected to Africa; however, it also seems as if Jamaicans also share in the Native American heritage, even if just due to their similar situations and experiences. I am not sure of Skrillex's background, and I couldn't find out. Either way, the video for the song features Native American actors and what seems to be a Native American theme, whether accurate or contrived. I'm also not sure if the lyrics even go with the video. In any case, both artists may have had little to do with the video, as the music industry often manages that part of the deal, unless the artist is independent of course, which I don't believe either of these two are. Anyway, I just wanted to share and see what people though?



The next video then is a relatively unknown band. Certainly not as well known as Junior Gong. However, they are awesome just the same. This song has no video, but it is the lyrics that deal specifically with a Native American topic. I'm not sure of the validity of the source the song draws from, but supposedly it's from something a Native American Chief once said. The song also references other Native American topics, concerns, and people. The singer, who I'm also pretty sure is not Native American, sings from the perspective of a that Native American chief whose words are supposedly sung in the chorus. Again, what do you think of this?



Ok, this next one is technically unrelated to the previous two, but I thought I'd include it anyway, because I had mentioned it in my previous post, but did not include it there. This is Nneka's song, "African," and I think that it's content relates to the Native American experience. She is also my favorite female musician! Once again, what do you think?

Scott Richard Lyons, Liminality, Indigenous Feminism, and the Relationship Between the Native American Female Experience and the African Female Experience

I really enjoyed the readings for this week. I thought the preface and introduction to Lyons X-Marks: Native Signatures of Assent was both comical, balanced, and enlightening. I’m not sure why, but I often feel drawn to those born of the liminal world; they usually seem to be better at mediation. As the world we currently live in seems fraught  with divisive struggles of every kind, I think this is not only an important ability to have, but I also believe masters of the art of mediation are needed as well. I’m sure they wouldn’t think of themselves that way, as I’m sure Lyons does not think of himself that way, but his text says otherwise. Furthermore, I realize that not everyone becomes a master mediator due to their experience with liminality, as many simply struggle through it, while others are driven mad by it. However, I do think that it is possible to achieve some sort of ability to navigate that space, and thus other spaces like it, resulting in a person who is adept at mediating difficult circumstances and situations. For example, he displays this skill when he writes,

Americans are no longer pursuing removalism, and reversing our losses is now up to us; nonetheless the gaping wounds of history are still visible and will remain so as long as the relationship between Native and newcomer is defined by past betrayals and present inequalities. But what of those promises made? I refer not only to the commitments made by whites to Natives but also to the promises made by Natives to themselves and their future heirs. (8)

It is this kind of stance, this standing in the middle of a situation, this looking at both sides critically and honestly, as both sides are part of the self, that seems to define the scholars of mediation among those of the liminal subject position. In this excerpt he accepts the present situation and states the problem exactly. The solution may be implicit, if there even is a solution, but the nature of the discussion is explicit.

The power of the liminal, it seems, comes from the ability to be of multiple worlds, and thus one can speak as part of each world; they can deal with both sides as if it is there right, for it is! When “white” people, or European descendents, whatever you want to call them, discuss Native Americans, they run the risk of seeming to support the hegemony of their subject position, as many of them have often done  in the past, and many probably still do today. Whereas, when a person of mixed ancestry speaks on the topic, it seems more acceptable. After all, they are of Native ancestry, right? Why can’t they discuss it. And as is often true, most people who share half European half something else almost always identify and are identified with their non-European half first and foremost. Because of this, on some level, they are often more non-European in culture and closer to that of their other side, and so when they speak from that side it makes sense; they know what they’re talking about. One of my favorite Nigerian musicians, Nneka, has a similar background, as she is half Nigerian and half German. Thus, through her music she is able to both claim Nigerian and Germany, and consequently Africa and Europe, as hers. Because of this, she is then able to criticize both organically and honestly. For instance, in one of my favorite songs, “Africans,” the chorus resounds, “Wake up Africa, wake up and stop blaming/ Wake up world, wake up and stop sleeping.” The background of the song is Nneka discussing how Africa’s present state of affairs is not only the result of European colonialism, but that Africans bare some of the responsibility as well. But at the same time, she does not let the colonialists get away with their crimes, as she also reminds the world of their part in the colonization of Africa, and commands the world to wake up to this reality.

While reading the excerpts for this week, I also couldn’t help but compare what I was reading to what I’ve been reading in my Women in African History class. I know there are major differences in the struggles of the African and the Native Americans, but there are many similarities as well. For instance, when Lyons tells of how the various Ojibwe peoples were amalgamated together into one nation, despite their separations over time and distances, I couldn’t help but think of the various clans and lineages, called tribes under colonialism, in Africa that were lumped together as if they were some cohesive whole. This phenomenon broke up pre-colonial states and dived them into different states while at the same time taking separate peoples who had little connection at all and combining them into these new states as well. Of course, this served the colonialists who then played these groups off one another, as the settlers also did, at times, to the Native Americans.

Furthermore, in the article, “Indigenous Feminism: Theorizing the Issues,” when the authors write that

For Indigenous women, colonization has involved their removal from positions of power, the replacement of traditional gender roles with Western patriarchal practices, the exertion of colonial control over Indigenous communities through the management of women’s bodies, and sexual violence. (1)

the comparison between the experiences of the Indigenous women in the Americas and the Indigenous women in Africa is practically the same. Practically everything we learn about in Women in African History deals with some aspect of what is said in that excerpt. In the other article on Indigenous Feminism, “Affirmations of an Indigenous Feminist,” this same link is often made. For example, when the author states that “our land-based societies were much more engaged with ways of honouring and nurturing life – all life,” (82). this is also true of many African pre-colonial societies, many of which were initially matrilineal. Like the Native family unit, the African family unit was also the center of life, and also like the Native American mother, the African mother was the social unit that held everything together. However, colonialism in Africa, like colonialism in America, would attack these family units by attacking the mothers that held them together. Because the Europeans could not grasp the concept of respecting women or treating them as anything close to equals, they were appalled by the power African women had and immediately sought to undermine it. Or, they simply just wouldn’t/ couldn’t recognize it in their ignorance of such a respect given towards women. Thus, they only dealt with men, and gave power to men, which left women out of the loop and created a great imbalance within Africa that still exists today…

Lastly, I also loved this line:

Living as we currently do in a violent and militarized world, a world that operates on hierarchical systems and in which women and children suffer disproportionate levels of poverty and abuse, I am struck by the thought that we have much to learn from the systems our ancestors created to protect themselves and Ka wee ooma aski, their original mother, the earth. (82)

I not only agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly, I believe that everyone in “the west” can learn from the original family and social economic structures that were created and mastered by Indigenous peoples living all over the world. 

Not Even Sure What to Call This...

I’m not sure if it’s the level of stress I’m dealing with this semester, the conflicting aspects between how I often feel and what I've been reading, or the current state of the world, but it seems as if everything is just too damn complicated. No matter how you feel, what you think, what you do, what you read, there always seems to be an element of struggle in any given area of focus. We are at war with the world, with each other, with ourselves, with everything it seems. And it is all of us. It’s not just one group of people, or one “race,” or even one class… it’s just all of us, together… How could it not be confusing? I mean, come on, we’re essentially talking about billions of people that are all individuals in their own right, yet all are members of one or another of the thousands of unique cultures, speaking different languages and possess different histories, religions, customs, understandings of the world and their place within it, as well as telling different stories to explain all of the above; how could it be any more complicated and confusing? I mean, cultural clashes are simply inevitable in this set of circumstances.

I’ll admit it, this class has certainly shown me that even though I thought that I was a supporter of Indigenous peoples, I was just another foolish American who had been indoctrinated in the stereotypes of the Native American. Yes, I may have known that the Indigenous holocaust was one of the greatest if not the greatest genocide in world history; however, I bought into the ideal that true Native American society was shamanistic, environmental, and above all spiritually balanced with mother earth. What can I say, I grew up in the woods; this seemed appealing to me. I wanted to believe that this is what all Native Americans were. When Paul Chaat Smith says, “Today the equation is Indian equals spiritualism and environmentalism” (20), he is talking about me. Reading that was tough  that realization of, “damn… not me too…” Haha. It’s hard to stomach at first. I never really thought of the fact that I simply amalgamated all Indigenous peoples into one homogeneous grouping of spiritual warriors. I never thought of Indigenous peoples as “vastly different cultures, which occasionally fought each other, no doubt sometimes viciously and for stupid reasons” (19), like Smith explains. How often do we not think of the pre-Columbus Americas in the following way: “If some Indian societies were ecological utopias with that perfect, elusive blend of democracy and individual freedom, some also practiced slavery, both before and after contact” (Smith 19-20).

Of course, it’s not as if I didn't realize they were humans; it’s not like I thought they were perfect little angels. But for the most part, my concept of a Native American was the typical stereotype that Paul Chaat Smith presents. This brings me to the notion presented in much of what we read about Indigenous Peoples discussing non-indigenous peoples reading, studying, and writing about Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous issues. It would seem that as non-indigenous peoples, the best thing we could do is just stay out of it, or at least stop talking about Indigenous peoples and their issues as if we know anything about any of it. But there’s the problem. What am I doing now? What am I doing in this class? How do I write about this topic? I have no real understanding, the kind that comes from experience, of Indigenous peoples, their true history, their culture, or the issues they deal with on a daily basis. But of course the answer isn't simply to ignore the topic of Indigenous Peoples altogether, and they don’t state that either. How could that be the answer? In today’s world that simply isn't possible. We’re all to interconnected at this point. There’s no going back to a world without contact. It could never be that simple; it’s much more complicated than that.

But no matter how stressful school gets, with all the work and the complicated, confusing, and often depressing subject matter, I just can’t relinquish the idea that it is possible for us to live together in harmony. Not the kind of Utopian harmony where everything is perfect, because that just seems a little far-fetched from any standard, but the kind of harmony where we at least try to be open minded and respectful towards one another. And of course many of us already do this; thus the reason I know it is possible in the first place. If race is the big lie that divides us, then some kind of notion of unity would be the obvious antithesis to this lie, right? Doesn't Paul Chaat Smith state that, “we do have a common history, that there really weren't any Indians in 1492, there weren't really any Europeans either, that everything was so fabulously complex and so different from how were taught to think about it” (74)? I mean, we are all humans, aren't we?

So, isn't it like Paul Chaat Smith says, “What really matters isn't the numbers of particular outcome, but whether  we can build new understands of what it means to be human in the twenty-first century” (86)? It’s about humanity, isn't it? Collectively, we've all been losing it on some level for a long time, right? Yes, some of us may have had our humanity stolen from us through the application of colonial ideology, but like Fanon argues, both the colonized and the colonizer suffer in such a relationship. Today, the colonial descendants have seemingly lost every aspect of their humanity; indeed, they lost it through their active colonization of human beings in both the past and as they continue to do in the present.

So how can we regain this lost humanity? All of us, not just some. Once again, there seems to be no easy answer. No, the contemporary world is much too complicated for easy answers. Maybe part of that answers is in the realization of the lies we tell ourselves on a daily basis in history, in society, in politics, etc… Like the “imaginary line between ‘East’ and ‘West’ (63) that Tuhiwai discuses in “Colonizing Knowledges.” “They continue to be redrawn” (63) she states. We do it every day; we’re constantly drawing imaginary lines all over the place… This just complicates things further… I’m not sure what else to say. To be honest, the more I learn the more I find that I’m just not sure… not sure of anything… 

Heart of Sky, Heart of Earth

I just wanted to share another blog post from the White Wolf Pack that I just found on the Aboriginal and Tribal Nation News Facebook page that pertains to a movie that looks quite interesting. It was released sometime in 2011, I believe, and it centers on six descendants of the Maya and their stories living in today's contemporary world. White Wolf Pack writes this about the film: "following six young Maya in Guatemala and Chiapas through their daily and ceremonial life. They put forth a wholly indigenous perspective in their own words, without narration. Their cosmovision, in which all life is sacred and interconnected, presents a deeply compelling alternative to the prevailing worldview." 

Among those who are followed throughout the movie, Chan K’in is studying to become a shaman, Alonso is an astro-archeologist, Flori is an activist who survived a genocide only to return to her home later in life to organize her people against a Canadian mining corporation, Felipe is a spiritual guide trying to help the victims of the genocide heal, Chepita is fighting against Monsanto and their genetically modified corn, and Jeronimo is a member of the Zapatistas.

In closing, White Wolf Pack also writes this about the documentary:

Heart of Sky, Heart of Earth combines the intimate accounts and the political presence of the Maya using exquisite imagery, music and dreamlike sequences. The film ridges the gap between the ancient Mayan creation myth, the Popol Vuh and the crises of today, from the haunting ruins of a fallen civilization to the ceremonies of today’s Maya, from their spirituality to their spirit of resistance.

Where the west has focused on the end of the world, they understand their calendar not as an inevitable prophecy, but as the closing of a circle, as a way to a new beginning. A moving and haunting film with a deep respect for the Indigenous. Their call is not just for control over their own lives. It is a last call to save the Earth.

I thought this description of the film, centered on its focus of presenting Indigenous presence and resistance, was a perfect example of the theoretical terms of Sovereignty and Survivance.

Here is the trailer for the film:



And the link to the White Wolf Pack blog is here, where further information can be found about the film: http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2012/09/documentary-heart-of-sky-heart-of-earth.html 

The Absence of the Real in the Ruins of Representation: Napoleon Chagon and the Yanomamo

Once again, while perusing through face book posts, I stumbled across another story that was shared by the “Aboriginal and Tribal Nation News” face book page, and once again it was a blog post from the “White Wolf Pack blog.” As I read through the post, it reminded me of Vizenor’s theory of the ruins of representation in the absence of the tribal real. The article recounts the work of an anthropologist, Napoleon Chagon, who published a book in 1968 entitled Yanomamo: The Firece People. The blog posts reports that the book was controversial in that it depicted the Yanomamo, an ancient Amazonian tribe of Venezuela and Brazil, as a war-like people who were prone to violence and constantly at war amongst themselves. The blog reveals that his analysis of the people was criticized by other scholars “as a reductive presentation of human behavior.” The author of the blog then reveals that Chagon has a new book out, and get this, it’s called Noble Savages! How perfect…

In it he not only defends his earlier work and his thesis that the Yanomamo are essentially a people prone to violence and war, he also attacks his critics and criticizes them for abandoning the scientific aspect of pure research in favor of civil rights activism on behalf of their subjects. However, those who criticize him are not simply civil rights activists, as the blog reveals: “a group of prominent anthropologists who have worked with the Yanomamo issued a joint statement,” against Chagon and his work. The statement reads as follows: “We absolutely disagree with Napoleon Chagnon’s pulic characterization of the Yanomamo as fierce, violent and archaic people. We also deplore how Chagnon’s work has been used throughout the years—and  could still be used—by governments to deny the Yanomamo their land and cultural rights.”

Another critic, a professor from Rhode Island College who spent decades studying the Yanomamo, replied that she was not only dismayed by the news that Chagnon had written another book, but that she “lived in Yanomamo villages and had never needed a weapon.” The blog post also displays the words of Survival International, a human rights organization that campaigns on behalf of indigenous peoples: Chagnon’s work is frequently used by writers… who want to portray tribal peoples as ‘brutal savages.’” The group even published a written testimonial from a spokesperson of the tribe: “For us, we Yanomamo who live in the forest, the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon is not our friend. He does not say good things, he doesn’t transmit good words. He talks about the Yanomamo but his words are only hostile.”

Chagnon, though declining to be interviewed directly responded: “Thos departments of anthropology whose members adhere to the scientific method will endure and again come to be the ‘standard approach’ to the study of Homo Sapiens, while those that are non-scientific will become less and less numerous or eventually be absorbed into disciplines that are non-anthropoloical, like comparative literature, gender studies, philosophy and others.”

To be honest, at first I was shocked that such blatant misrepresentations are still published today, but then on second thought, I realized that of course that kind of false representation still exists. But what makes this story and the absence of the tribal real in Chagnon’s books so controversial and troubling to me is that he is not just some guy who published some controversial book, he is a professor of anthropology at the University of Missouri and he retired professor emeritus from the University of California, Santa Barbara. The ruins of his representation hold wait. 

Here is the link to the blog post: http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2013/03/amazon-rainforest-tribe-at-centre-of.html 

The Significance of the Casino to Native American Sovereignty

As I read through Vizenor’s chapter entitled “Casino Coups,” my feelings were mixed on the topic. On one hand I find myself struggling with the notion that gambling, on the scale of the casino, has somehow become a valuable aspect of the Native American community and in some cases even associated with Native American Sovereignty as well. But, on the other hand, I can see the ironic beauty in it.

I think my struggle with accepting the casino as a representation of some kind of new found power within the Native American community is more personal than anything else. Because there are a few people in my family who struggle with gambling. And it is not like they have money so they just enjoy the games and can afford it. No, they are living in poverty. But it was not the gambling that impoverished them; they were born into poverty, as Southwest Philadelphia is certainly not known for its wealth. Their problems with gambling developed out of a desire to escape that poverty; however, as most have virtually no education or other means through which to escape their situation, they often turn to gambling. In their hopelessness, they turn to the dream of that possibility of winning big! Regardless of the unlikelihood of winning, they waste what little money they have on that dream… But hey, if you lack even a high school diploma, how could you be expected to understand the notion of probability. This is the primary reason I am opposed to gambling and believe that it is ultimately a corrupt institution. Because, more often than not, it preys upon the lower classes as it entices them with the promises of transcending their downcast social state, while at the same time tricking them into gambling away what little wealth they have by playing a mathematically rigged game of chance.

However, having said that, when it comes to the Native American situation, my attitude changes slightly, as I see the irony surrounding the topic. For instance, many of the native peoples of this land were the victims of a genocide that was primarily supported by the corrupt desire, greed, and heartlessness of European expansion and  constant acquisition. Eventually having the vast majority of their lands stolen from them and being themselves physically moved in many cases to select areas called reservations, and being essentially left to struggle and suffer in these places, I can’t really be upset with native peoples for taking advantage of the ability to run casinos on lands that are not governed by the state itself. To a certain degree I find it satisfyingly ironic that they can now generate power through playing off of the desire and greed for wealth that many Americans who are foolish enough to gamble lust after, and at the same time make a statement of sovereignty through that process. Why not? My concern, however, is if that money is actually being used to support the native peoples on those reservations. If it is being used for such a thing, then I think it’s a good thing. But if it is just benefiting a few native people who run or own the casinos, than I think it is completely corrupt. Plus, I wonder to what extent the casinos play off of the poverty of the native peoples on the reservations themselves. Because that would also seem rather corrupt to me as well.

Personally, I really liked Vizenor’s proposal, that “The tribes could name ambassadors to various nations and establish an international presence as a sovereign government; the creation of embassies would be a wiser test of sovereignty than casino riches with no honorable power. Then the tribal embassies could negotiate with casino monies the liberation of hundreds of stateless families in the world. The liberation of Kurdish, Tibetan, Haitian, and other families, for instance, would sustain the moral traditions of tribal cultures” (148). I think that is an incredible idea! And I certainly hope that somewhere someone is doing something like that. Because throughout a lot of what we have read so far, it seems a great deal of importance is placed upon presence and absence. For instance, the presence of casinos on reservation lands and their ability to bring wealth, and thus power, into Native American hands. Perhaps, if this wealth was used to establish an international community, as Vizenor suggests, the presence of this international community of native peoples and their struggles may be officially recognized, respected, and included among international organizations like the United Nations. Is there absence from such a community the reason for their lack of power? In this world it would seem that an absence of the ability to represent oneself matters greatly. Is that not what sovereignty is all about, the ability to represent oneself and one’s people?

It’s like Vizenor says at the end of “Casino Coups:” “Casinos are the wages of wealth, morality, and sovereignty, but tribal courage and international presence could secure more than the envies of casino riches and the limited sovereignty determined by federal courts and the government. Casino avarice with no moral traditions is a mean measure of tribal wisdom” (148). 

In Honor of Russell Means

Just a few days ago I stumbled across a post on a facebook page entitled “Aboriginal and Tribal Nation News.” The post was from a blog entitled “White World Pack,” and the actual post was entitled “Late Russell means to be honored on 40^th Anniversary of Wounded Knee Occupation.” The post includes some background on Russell Means, a few photos of him, and a video of the late activist during the American Indian Movement occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973. The photos here, as well as the video clip, reminded me of Tsinhnahjinnie’s photography. Instead of portraying Means and the other Native Americans in a stereotypical light, they portray them as they are in reality. The link to the blog-post, and the photos, is featured here:

http://www.whitewolfpack.com/2013/02/late-russell-means-to-be-honored-on.html

In an earlier post I discussed an event known as the “Pine Ridge Shootout” that took place on the Wounded Knee reservation in South Dakota. In that post I also briefly touched upon the Wounded Knee Occupation, in which Russell Means was involved. His life was dedicated to activism, as he was involved in several occupations, protests, such as the “Siege of Mount Rushmore,” the “Thanksgiving Day demonstration at Plymouth Rock,” and the “Takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Headquarters” in Washington D.C. He was even involved in political pursuits, such as his run for Vice President alongside Larry Flint in 1983, his run for nomination for the Presidency of the United States under the Libertarian Party in 1987, and his run for President of the Oglala-Sioux in 2004. He stared in movies, such as The Last of the Mohicans, wrote poetry, screenplays, and books, and released music. He truly is an awe inspiring person, and he was a Native American activist who is still revered among Native Americans and non-Native Americans alike. Sadly, he passed away this past October.

The link to his website, which includes a biography, an archive of events he was involved with, video and audio links, speech text, a list of his accomplishments, and a link to a blog-post written by him, is featured here:

http://www.russellmeans.com/

 

"Shadow Survivance," Rhetorical Sovereignty, and Photography

The very first line of Vizenor’s “Shadow Survivance” stood out to me, as it reads, “The postindian turns in literature, the later indication of new narratives, are an invitation to the closure of dominance in the ruins of representation” (63). Like everything we have read from Vizenor thus far, this line is not only well stated, but poetic as well. Also like much of what we have read from Vizenor, the line seems both enlightening and elusive at the same time. In my understanding of the line, Vizenor essentially states that the move from stories centered upon the stereotypical “Indian” to those centered on and around authentic native characters and Native American society and culture in general signifies a new kind of narrative—that of the native writing for him or her self—which marks the beginning of the end for the dominance found in the misrepresentation of American narratives on Native Americans.

As a side note, this reminds me of the old saying, “Until the story is told from the perspective of the lion, history will always glorify the hunter.” Now, I certainly do not mean to relate the Native American experience to that of an animal’s experience; however, I do see a similarity in the wording. For example, concerning the Native American experience, it could easily say, “Until the story is told from the perspective of the Native American, history will always glorify the European.” Was this not a reality until very recently, and still a reality in some respects today? Surely, it was and still is. If it were not for writers like Vizenor and other Native Americans practicing their natural right of Rhetorical Sovereignty, this would be the case without challenge. One could also word the saying as, “Until the story is told from the perspective of the native, history will always glorify the settler.” This has also been a reality of the past as well as a battle still raging at present.

The imperative nature of Rhetorical Sovereignty is clear in this perspective, for people must tell their own stories in representation of themselves and their cultures if they are to combat the presence of culturally misunderstood interpretation, negative appropriation, and corrupt representation that is found in the telling of other peoples stories. This is the only way to achieve a more accurate understanding of history and humanity. We must promote the sharing of stories. But for this to become a reality, we must be willing to listen. We must be willing to engage openly and open mindedly with peoples we may perceive as foreign and different from us. It has long been the mistake of “western” peoples to not do so, for with just a little bit of open mindedness the barriers of difference may be breached and understanding and respect achieved!

The importance of Rhetorical Sovereignty is further shown in Vizenor’s discourse on the bear. For instance, he relates how “The bear is a shadow in the silence of tribal stories; memories and that sense of presence are unsaid in the name” (73). Based on this excerpt, the implicit in what is not said is an important aspect of the rhetorical nature of the Native American art of storytelling. He also says, “The shadow, not the bear, is the referent, the sense of presence in the name, and the trace to other stories” (73). The significance of a story is not only the story itself, but what the story means to those who understand the true nature of the telling of that story, and its connection to other stories. Thus the importance of Native American storytellers, for the culturally misunderstood interpretations, negative appropriations, and corrupted representations were the result of a lack of understanding of the culture itself, and its use of the oratory art. The colonialists were guilty of this in the Americas, Asia, and Africa.

Even today people try to apply “western” concepts and theories to non-western cultures. Whether it’s feminists trying to squeeze all African women into their conception of the female experience or theorists of structuralism trying to apply their concepts to Native American stories, as Vizenor references, this is still a reality. Hence Vizenor’s statement: “Native American Indian literatures have been overburdened with critical interpretations based on structuralism and other social science theories that value incoherent foundational representations of tribal experiences” (74). It is not that these are incoherent in and of themselves, for they may be useful in the analysis of “western” texts; however, their forced application onto non-western texts are problematic. Hence Vizenor’s assessment that “Foundational theories have overburdened tribal imagination, memories, and the coherence of natural reason with simulations and the cruelties of paracolonial historicism” (75). Europeans, in their ignorant, egotistic, and arrogant way, were unable to sense or understand the deeper complexities found in the native stories and art of storytelling. This is why Vizenor also states that “The elusive and clever trickster characters in tribal imagination are seldom heard or understood in translation. Missionaries and anthropologists were the first to misconstrue silence, transformation, and figuration in tribal stories; they were not trained to hear stories as creative literature and translated many stories as mere cultural representations” (75).

Later in “Shadow Survivance” another part stood out to me as well, as Vizenor quoted Elizabeth Cook-Lynn as saying, “anger is what started me writing. Writing, for me, then, is an act of defiance born of the need to survive. I am me. I exist. I am a Dakotah… It is an act of courage, I think. And, in the end, as Simon Ortiz says, it is an act that defies oppression” (93). This part stood out to me as a perfect representation of Survivance. I was instantly reminded of Dr. Morris’s simple definition: “In the most simplistic terms, think of it as survival + resistance = survivance.” And it is this aspect of indigenous, native, paracolonial, or postcolonial writing that interests me most. I am fascinated how people respond to, deal with, defy, resist, and endure colonization and oppression through art, whether it be in the form of writing, photography, painting, or music.

In relation to the photography of Hulleah J. Tsinhnahjinnie and Edward S. Curtis then, and it’s relationship to Vizenor’s theory of Survivance and the simulations found in the “ruins of representation,” it is apparent that Curtis’s work exemplifies the later, whereas Tsinhnahjinnie’s exemplifies the former. For instance, on Tsinhnahjinnie’s website, one may see images of Native Americans from the same time period as those of Curtis’s images; however, while his images are depicted in the dominant simulations of the American stereotype of the “Indian at the time,” Tsinhnahjinnie’s images show a more accurate representation of the reality of Native American peoples at the time, as they are dressed in similar fashion to most people in the U.S. at the time, not as wearing feathered headdresses and the like. I don’t mean to imply that Native peoples of the time didn’t wear traditional dress as well, as Tsinhnahjinnie depicts this as well, but just that they did not as a whole dress in the stereotypical fashion in which Curtis portrays them as dressing.

Vizenor speaks to this when he recalls the story of Ishi, which we have read of before. He writes, “Ishi was never his real name, and he is not the photographs of that tribal man captured three generations ago in a slaughterhouse in northern California. He was thin and wore a canvas shirt then, a man of natural reason, a lonesome hunter, but never the stout pastiche of a wild man lost and found in a museum” (126). This is exactly what I mean, that most natives would have dressed in line with the natural reason of this man. They were not as they were depicted to be, as Vizenor argues. Curtis’s representation are corrupt in that they are not authentic. They were crafted to fit the stereotype of the time, whereas Tsinhnahjinnie’s are designed to challenge that stereotype. A simple Wikipedia search reveals that Tsinhnahjinnie engages in “visual sovereignty,” as she is recounted as stating: “I have been photographing for thirty-five years, but the photographs I take are not for white people to look at Native people. I take photographs so that Native people can look at Native people. I make photographs for Native people.” Curtis’s photos on the other hand were undoubtedly for the visual pleasure of “white” people. Vizenor also says that “The gaze of those behind the camera haunts the unseen margins of time and scene in the photograph; the obscure presence of witnesses at the simulation of savagism could become the last epiphanies of a chemical civilization” (127). Curtis is that man behind the camera representing that civilization, whereas Tsinhnahjinnie’s mission is in line with Vizenor’s mission.