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/