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!
