(Indian Country Today) "Making my case in Indian country": The 2008 presidential election will determine the future direction of the country, and I am running for president to change the national policy agenda so that it provides opportunity and improves the quality of life for all Americans, not just the most privileged among us. It is my goal to run a campaign from the ''bottom up'' - a campaign that empowers individuals at the community level who do not accept the national priorities set by their current government leaders in Washington. And I hope that American Indians will give my campaign a serious look and join our coalition for change.
As a youth I lived for several years in Indonesia. I began my professional life working as a community organizer in an impoverished Chicago neighborhood devastated by steel layoffs. I know, I have seen the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta, Indonesia, in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago's South Side or the lives of many children of the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota. I know the response of the powerful to this disorder - alternating as it does between a dull complacency and downright indifference. And I know that many residents of these communities have already given up the hope that politics can actually improve their lives.
It is this experience that reinforces my respect for tribal sovereignty and my unwavering support for Native tribes' government-to-government relationship with the U.S. government. It is clear to me that Washington's ''one size fits all'' solutions don't work in Indian country and never have. Instead, my experiences have taught me that the real solutions - the solutions that work - are the ones that come from the affected communities themselves. The simple truth is that sound Indian policy must have at its core, the empowerment of tribal nations to address their own problems. That will be an important emphasis of my presidency.
It is time for the president of the United States to communicate directly with American Indian leaders and include them in important policy decisions that impact Indian country. I will appoint an American Indian policy adviser on my senior White House staff so that Indian country has a strong voice at the highest levels of the Obama administration. And I will call an annual meeting with Native leaders to develop a national Indian policy agenda.
We must make sure that it is not just the BIA and IHS dealing with issues impacting Native communities. The president of the United States should meet on a regular basis with the American Indian leadership and ensure relationships of mutual dignity and respect.
In my three years in the United States Senate, I have been at the forefront of the fight to pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I led the effort to stop voter identification requirements that have been used in several states to suppress voter turnout on Indian reservations. And I voted to dramatically increase funding for the IHS and urban Indian health programs. In addition, I have been an advocate for fully funding the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that will provide critical aid to many impoverished reservation communities.
As president, I will support full funding of the IHS and continued funding of urban Indian health programs. Having been raised by a working single mother who understood the importance of education to her children's future, I understand that dilapidated reservation schools are intolerable, and I will insist on robust funding of school construction in Indian country. Further, I also understand that tribal colleges play a vital role and are doing a magnificent job in preparing their students to compete in the modern economy, and I will support their enhancement and expansion. And I understand that Indian gaming revenues are important tribal resources for funding education, health care, law enforcement and other essential government functions.
Additionally, tribal communities must be empowered to protect their citizens and it is therefore essential to provide greater funding for tribal police programs and tribal courts and for correcting by statute the jurisdictional gaps that inhibit tribes' ability to protect their communities. And I will advocate legal protections for sacred places and cultural traditions, including Native ancestors' burial grounds and churches.
Furthermore, I firmly believe in the words of Justice Hugo Black that ''[g]reat nations, like great men, should keep their word.'' So under my presidency, we will live up to the federal government's solemn commitments enshrined in treaties with the tribal nations. And I will ensure that we live up to our commitments in ensuring the effective, efficient and honest management of trust income, as this Nation has promised to do, and to equitably redress the errors of the past.
My opponents are fond of pointing out that I have not been in Washington long. My answer to them is that I have been there long enough to know that things in Washington must change. And nowhere is that more true than in our Nation's policies with respect to the First Americans.
Barack Obama serves as a U.S senator from Illinois and is running for president. He lives in Chicago's South Side with his wife Michelle, and their two daughters. (source)
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Obama: "Making my case in Indian country"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment
32 comments:
It sounds good. I am just not sure how this represents a change from the Status quo.
Also, as I read this I was struck by the "bottom up" phrase in the first paragraph. I think I realize what he was going for... that as an ethnic group we are considered disenfrachised politically or such a small population that we considered unimportant in electoral politics (which I think is an incorrect calculation). But, I had to read it twice, to be sure.
I liked the tone of the speech. I am not sure Obama realizes that much of Indian country is very skeptical of liberal policy making. I noticed that many of the issues he brings up tend to be more associated with liberal policy issues than not. It is not a mistake, I don't think, though it goes unreported, that many Native leaders across the U.S. remain heavily concerned about fiscal issues that effect American Indian land holdings, and as such many people tend to vote as fiscal conservatives.
I must applaud his stance on tribal health issues. He stands out in this area, especially where he mentions IHS clinics in urban areas. He will win the attention of many concerned votes in and around Indian country. It is clear to me that Obama as Senator has an education on these issues. And that this is what good politicians do, they talk to key constitients about their issues.
The primary reason I am skeptical of the "bottom up" theory is that I think states with the largest American Indian populations are typically Blue states in the West, where high number of American Indian votes could be key for Democrats.
American Indians who tend to associate themselves with conservatives do so as landowners. There is a silence in Obama's statement with regard to the Cobell Case, which many, many of the leaders in Indian country watch very closely. I don't think he could have mentioned the Cobell case without drawing himself into a possible debate on this issue. John McCain is on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. But that is a discussion for a later time.
Last nite during his victory speech, why did Senator Obama enlist the historical help of "pioneers who went west"?
I could say much, much more.
He has to throw those nostalgic American nationalist points in for the so-called "centrist-democrats" and "obama-republican" voters he's courting. The politics of trying to win a national election in "melting-pot" America i guess
Oh, yeah. I'm sure. It jibes pretty well with the status quo... talking about federal Indian policies in glowing terms in news from Indian Country Today and exhalting the pioneer going West in order to gain centrist democrat votes in campaign victory speeches.
interesting...native americans have some the of the highest rates of diabetes and hypertension..especially the Pimas on whom a lot of research has been done...so yea health care is the one thing that I look for in the stuff I read and the things I listen to...sometimes I really want to believe that what is said will be done...I like Obama and I tend to be pretty apathetic ( i know ..i know) so thats saying something for me but that comment about pioneers going west is not surprising--its the game... bt what I want to knowwhy cant we just have national health care? sure it wont be easy ( the NHS shows that) but its better than what we have now.
Yeah. Okay, national health care. Native people have national health care. It's the Indian Health Service and it is tied to federal Indian Policy. So, yeah. It's like a clinic. If you need surgery or something more than the basics, a person had to go elsewhere. But one very interesting question about national health care is not being asked: How would the right to choose be affected by national health care? As it stands, the IHS cannot provide abortion services because the Hyde Amendment prohibits spending federal dollars for abortion services. That means American Indian women in South Dakota travel many hundreds of miles to receive these services. I think this is one of the possible reasons why Obama is steering clear of the idea of national health care program, because he knows it would be fodder for the social conservatives in the Republican party. Democrats are trying to make up ground with regards to "values" and "family". No one has asked this question of Hillary either because well... they know what lies a head in the general election.
Plus, I think if the "Pioneers going West" thing were somehow a comment that effected African Americans the response would be swift and taken very seriously.
I thought it was a one thing. But, again last night Obama invokes the spirit of "pioneers going west".
I get an image of Obama and family in a wagon train hoping and fearing that they do not meet some dreaded tribe of wild Indians before they reach their destination. Suddenly, a few silouettes appear on the ridge at the vanishing point on the horizon. Are they Indians? Should the wagoneers (folks who drive volvos) pull together and form a circle with women and children in the middle. No, as the strangers advance they recognize the signage of the U.S. army, 2nd Calvary. They have been out here making the frontier safe for the westward waving pioneers, and soon enough a a pair of Apache helicopters appear in the sky overhead signaling the all clear, the tribesman and clans are no where to be found... for now.
Mizzy: what do you mean by "taken care of"? simply that there would be an outrage? ala Don Imus? and by who would it be taken care of swiftly? and who would be responsible for it being taken care of swiftly?
Yeah... I wrote "Taken seriously".
And I guess you're not outraged then. Okay. I guess you just accept this as a part of "the game" of pleasing centrist democrats. I can't really take Obama seriously on "Change" in Indian Country at the same time he wants to say "Yes We Can" in the name of "pioneers going West". That is the context in which he invokes pioneers. Yes, he invokes the founding fathers too, and in the next breath he mentions former slaves and abolitionists. He also invokes women, Latinos, Chinese railroad workers. Everyone we would expect to see as a part of broad liberal coalition of people who have overcome the odds or transcended race or gender to become part of America. So, what does is he saying to American Indian people then... I think we should fund urban Indian Health Service and BIA schools, but we are going to have to keep around this nagging Manifest Destiny thing?
Who should be outraged? I guess Native people and people who care about this kind of thing should be outraged. I mean pioneers going West were responsible for massacre, rape, biological warfare, theft, murder... so, yeah. I mean seeing as how huge a presence American Indians have in the media... it's a wonder how stuff like this gets overlooked.
There are Imus moments everyday that go overlooked when it comes to Natives. In Minnesota about two months ago a radio show DJ on KQRS said that no one was suprised by what happened in the Red Lake shooting... and said something about the Ojibwe people who live there as products of incest. Yeah, that was such huge news around the country. It should have been, and it wasn't. So, please don't try and bait me with regards to what gets covered and what doesn't. It is really infuriating to listen to people get rightly outraged by one incident and then when it happens to others there is no response. Don't you think it should be called out no matter how large or small the group of people in question is...? I mean really.
first.
not "baiting you".
second.
i agree that it should be "taken seriously"
third.
i am not surprised by obama saying this, i do not accept it, it stands out to me like a black eye.
fourth.
i still recognize that this is indeed the game of american presidential politics, and i blame the public that obama is pandering to more than i blame obama as the root cause here. politicians sell out to the wishes of those who put the most demand on them. they are basically soulless vessels.
fifth.
i ask the question of what should be done, because i genuinely have a hard time coming up with a demand when this type of crime of speech and historiography goes down... i mean even taking imus off the air was lame to me. that doesn't solve the problem. so i ask myself what is sufficient punishment then? im not going to spend my days "ambulance chasing" instances of individual racism. calling it out is one thing. but even with imus, i think many of us become leery of calling it out because we knew a million black folks would be "outraged" and would be talking about it, but i think folks are sick of outrage (especially in this day and age of blogging, where everyone's outrage has a forum) with no suggestion for how to remedy the crime. what i wrote about when imus happened was not my outrage, i said forget all the outrage, i wrote about what i thought were the solutions to the problem of a thousand imuses.
lastly.
so what i was interested in hearing from you was if you have any ideas for what we might do to remedy obama's pandering via manifest destiny rhetoric? do you focus primarily on obama? or do you focus primarily on the public who is looking for obama to pander to them with the "patriotic" rhetoric? admittedly, i'm pretty pessimistic about the american public changing much. i think it's likely that for the foreseeable future, Americans will cling to the manifest destiny rhetoric. and more new americans will be assimilated into that rhetoric than are not. and i think it's likely that politicians will continue to be forced to play to it if they want to become presidents. i do think it's worth something to be outraged and to share that outrage and speak up when things like this happen, but it does get stagnating when we don't have any power moves available to us or solutions in mind to remedy these crimes after, or to accompany, our outrage.
My mistake, when I first brought it up, you were largely indifferent. But, this is not about anything one individual can do alone. You take for granted a number of people who are likely "outraged" when these issues arise. I don't. Say what you like about it, but in a way it seems like you are saying that you can afford not be outraged because millions of other people are uselessly so. I've said it before, I'll say it again: it looks like an embarrassment of riches from where I am sitting. Leaving that aside, it's really as you point out a larger cultural issue in the U.S. And, of course, I like to think that the answer is leadership. For me, a part of me wants to be a part of the change Obama is offering on the campaign, but I hear statements like this and it makes it very, very difficult. It's a broad sweeping statement. For once, I would like to see it argued out in the media. Usually when issues like this arise on a smaller scale with local radio personalities and such... the response from the public is generally... Don't the Indians know that we won. Or why do continue to give these people money from the federal government. And this is apart of what Obama is addressing when he says the U.S. should keep it's treaty agreements. But then it's back to the drumbeating of "pioneers going West". A person begins to wonder about how both things are possible or how a person thinks that they can achieve both. And there is no consensus in Indian Country. I am sure I share your apathy, but I can't even afford apathy.
i think we're in agreement.
i wouldn't say i'm apathetic to issues like this one or imus-like comments.
i try and be wise and preserve my energy and use it efficiently.
it is usually outrage that motivates me to do something but instead doing anything right away, i've learned to contemplate things, think them through and act efficiently to the best of my ability.
so with imus for example, i was outraged. but i didn't react. i thought about it and decided that i wanted to try and be visionary. to share a vision that might produce solutions or at least produce the ideas of solutions in people's minds and my own mind.
so for this obama comment that he keeps repeating i'm wondering what our visions for solutions are here.
i share your feeling of dilemma regarding obama. but since my stance is one of skepticism for all politicians i don't feel pressured to decide a loyalty to obama. i expect to be disappointed by every politicians in some way. but i also expect to get something form every politician in some way. that's politics in a multicultural society.
now as far as a vision for what i'd like to see (which is a necessary tool to carry alongside of a healthy skepticism) i can only see a few options really, no matter how much i think about this:
one... we demand that obama runs without these "patriotic" comments.
the risk... he tries and runs the risk of not making white people comfortable enough with him to stay behind him. maybe they start to wonder why obama never does or says things overtly traditionally patriotic and maybe that looses him support.
which leads to number two...
two... the American public's expectations and appetite for overt-pseudo-patriotism/nationalism lessens, allowing a person like obama to not have to make these types of appeals if he wants a decent shot at the presidency.
perhaps the fox-news like attitudes start to lessen. but since 9/11 that appetite seems to only be on the rise. it's like a pacifier for a crying, scared baby.
i think if most people who are at a dilemma about obama probably would match up better with someone like a dennis kucinich. unfortunately someone like that doesn't appeal to a large enough bloc because he isn't willing to make some of the compromises of an obama. thus, we get two candidates who have many things that will rub us the wrong way.
which brings us to...
three... the idea that we can eliminate the fear that the American public has in electing a radical leadership.
my skepticism here is that most people -- forget Americans -- tend to favor moderate change unless they are thrust into radical changes. so barring something big, i don't see that happening, but that doesn't mean i won't be pushing and fighting for those radical changes in my daily life (i.e. a change in the American ethos regarding indians IS INDEED a radical change for the majority of Americans), as well as in encounters with friends and with new people i encounter... and on the general battlefield of ideas.
towards that topic... i think writing about things like this do contribute in the battle of ideas, but i wonder how many minds we change by merely pointing out things? i wonder how many minds i change by sharing news about another black boy getting shot. some friends tell me it just comes across like a drum beat on their head. and i worry if i'm not scarring away more minds then i am changing.
it doesn't keep me from doing it, but it has challenged me to think of more ways to change people's minds.
i don't think obama's mind needs to be changed so i'm not worried about him. and i'm not worried about the people whose minds don't need to be changed but are still voting for obama... i'm most worried about the minds that are voting for obama because he isn't challenging them to change their minds. how do you change those minds? hell, how do you even reach those folks? i feel like i've spent a good amount of time investing in worthy friendships and family and i'm not too sure i even reach those folks in my daily routine.
so the question for me becomes if i care enough about those minds that need to be changed to reach out to them? or would i rather just hunker down and organize and build with folks whose minds i trust or whose minds might just need educating rather then changing...
which brings up another distinction... between those minds that would need to be changed and those minds who are open to learning and just need to be informed. big difference regarding the expenditure of energy and the worth of that expenditure.
for now, the combination of informing/educating and sharing alternative visions is the best i can think to do as far as really moving towards change. and i recognize that as a slow process.
so in the meantime people need real things like healthcare and housing and food and jobs so i guess we end up supporting the lesser of two evils in order to just get the most we can... to just get by until the larger work we do starts to show rewards.
There's always the Sherman Alexie answer of late: Abolish reservations and the federal Indian System.
i think you've done a pretty good job of showing that a solution like that has many many flaws... but nevertheless, it is a vision for a solution, at least.
No. I don't think I have suggested this as a solution. In the past I have only more or less tried to point out how complicated the federal Indian system has become over the past century. People on this blog know only very little about the realities of federal Indian policy, as do most people. So when an issue comes up suggesting that there should be some unity on a certain issue, often between black and native, I have tried to point up the fact that there really are differences of opinion stemming from very different sets of laws. That there is almost a complete double set of laws that apply to individual Indian living on the reservation, and a whole host of other laws that deal specifically with native issues. I have done so to answer questions that arise around issues that people would guess that natives and black people have in common. Which is sort of an unseemly end to most conversations on this blog. Conversations about federal Indian policy do not usually end with solutions or visions of the future, but are usually mired in the theft and bureaucracy of the past.
Sherman Alexie recently advocated the abolition of reservations and an end to federal Indian policy as we know it, in favor of constitutional protections, we have to assume.
maybe you didn't get what i was saying:
i think you've done a pretty good job of showing that a solution like this one that Alexie is proposing has many many complexities and flaws...
so i'm not saying that you suggested this as a solution. in fact i'm saying what you've contributed has allowed me at least to see that it's not as simple as Alexie's solution.
BUT, nevertheless, it is a vision for a solution, at least, which i respect, because at least there is something on the table that can be refuted, critiqued, etc.
This is Sherman Alexie. I have never advocated for the abolishment of the federal Indian system. Or for the abolishment of reservations. I am of the opinion that reservations were created as places for Indians to disappear and die. And I believe they still play that function. My exact quote about reservations, "I'm out of the closet, so to speak, when it comes to reservations. So I say this to young people growing up on the rez: get your ass out as soon as you can. For most of our history, we were nomadic, kinetic people. The rez has made us static. So, young Indian people, get kinetic." In essence, you guys are arguing for the tribes; I'm arguing for the individual. Growing up on the rez, I was never taught that the world is filled with amazing and gorgeous people and places and ideas. In fact, I was taught the opposite. Such are the dangers of tribalism.
Tell it to the judge. My Indian mom grew up in an orphanage, in foster homes, and then with indifferent people. But, she's not a trope in one of your books, so I don't think that it would be of much use to you. The rez is not the only place where an Indian can grow up faced with danger.
Or why don't you write another book about an adopted out Indian whose life is such a tragedy that they are suspected of murder. Or another story about some adopted person whose life is so tragic that their live can only be used as some trope in one of your stories for the purposes of proving some vague and oblique point about how American culture emasculates native men. There are a few Indians out there whose stories are (ironically enough) used by... well namely you... and a handful of other native writers... that feel you have license to misappropriate some of those stories. I laughed frankly when I read "When the story Stolen Is Your Own" and thought to myself... this is from the person who wrote Indian Killer? I don't have much sympathy Mr. Alexie for whatever your defense might be on that point. My mom, my half brother, and I all lived in all white communities and suffered terrifically there, but can't make the same kinds of claim to the racist and economic violence suffered there as you have proven yourself so capable of doing, there isn't a forum. So you want to talk about people who are caught in between, anytime, man, any time.
People can read the article in the Circle if they wish. And what is the point of arguing for the individual exactly... to get off the rez? Forgive me for misquoting you. Please. Please. Please. Is that good enough? You did not advocate for the abolishment of the federal Indian System. Good stuff? Or should we wait for you to make another such muscular sounding appearance on this blog.
(It was like the booming voice of God... "This is Sherman Alexie")
Very interesting conversation. If I may add a few cents here:
1) Mizzy- I appreciate your honesty. PLEASE know that. When its all said and done I think that Indigenous/Native issues HAVE been INTENTIONALLY marginalized for a very specific purpose. The Native struggle represents America's dirty little secret (at least for our generation). I would say that 100 years ago Native/Indigenous communities were seen as a threat to the American way of life and were therefore discussed way more (if for no other reason than to destroy these communities). Its the same with Africans, wherever we were enslaved you see an assortment of discussion regarding the "plight of the African" or "what to do with the African" trying to "learn the African" etc. If for no other reason than to destroy, these topics were up for discussion. The twisted part about this new-millenium government is that they straight up remove our issues from the conversation (aside from attempting to make us think things are "fine" and wherever they aren't its CLEARLY because of our own insufficiencies).
2) Please don't let the African-American mainstream representation fool you. It has unfortunately fooled many of US in the process and created personas that are more appealing to the "general public" (white and protestant). Problem is that just doesn't reflect the plethora of African-American perspectives and political views. I think you present an important critique of Obama. Interestingly enough, many African-Americans have discussed these ideas as well. Obama's willingness to represent American Imperialism is frightening to say the least because it devalues the Native/Indigenous experience, the African (American) experience, etc. Shoot, Dr. King and Malcom X could be seen live and direct on a variety of debates in the 60s, giving it to America! You can't get that now. So I mean we are getting watered down and washed up versions of A LOT. In all of our communities, and its a damn shame too.
3) As you mentioned there isn't one homogenous Native/Indigenous community. Similarly, there are a variety of African (American) communities and cultural experiences which make up our various perspectives. Where you see larger, stronger African populations (during and after enslavement) there tends to be stronger connections to Africa, thus making these cultural practices more visible. Moreover many of our communities are made up of folks from all over the Diaspora (some of whom migrated to the States merely for the "American Dream"). Some of these people don't even view America as the "end all be all" but more so as a means to an end, making them more willing to participate in whatever America has to offer--shying away from conflict in the process mind you--while trying to build a REAL future elsewhere (back home, etc). Moreover a lot of these folks have come from places where Imperialism was implemented in a similar fashion and have their own identity issues and/or have seen the affects of radical change and fear state-sponsored backlash. I think for other African Americans (born and raised here) there is the feeling that a sense of autonomy can somehow be created while existing under the auspices of the U.S. Of COURSE history has proven otherwise, but I think with the 80's/90's generation in particular, the whole "intergation means EQUAL" propaganda has been damaging to our African (American) self-determination. So folks are feeling like, hey if I try real REAL hard I TOO can be American! Problem is that's not realistic and even if it WERE, who wants to represent such a medley of imbalance?
4) Which takes us to the point that Achali was making about being a visionary and exploring the future intentionally (as opposed to reacting to the present as it happens to us). Seeing things for what they are (regardless of how painful they may be) and stating them as such (which is what he appears to be doing) is a MAJOR step towards radical change. It would be unfair to assume that he (or any other African American) is bought and sold simply because we are in a state of reflection and decision making. Please remember that things aren't ALWAYS what they seem (and based on the discussions that take place on this blog, there is at least an attempt to dig through the mess that we have ALL found oursleves in and try to get out).
5) My Point- As mentioned you have provided a very real "calling out" of sorts which is something that BELIEVE me happens in a whole lot of African (American) circles. I get the feeling that it appears that African Americans are in support of the status quo (or have at least been involved in ways that appear to be questionable i.e. Barack Obama). I can understand how it could appear that way in 2008 ESPECIALLY if one were to believe the media propaganda. HOWEVER, I think that there is WAY more to that discussion then Barack Obama or Oprah or any other mainstream individual. So its easy to dismiss the African American (based on the way we are presented as mainstream American flunkies). Still, as critical thinkers we have to look beneath the surface to see whats really happening and how people REALLY view their role in the U.S.
Random Aside- My Brother (who's a teacher) recieved a letter from his 14-year-old student. In it the student (an African American) flat out stated that he didn't expect to live through this summer. So in no way shape or form are the masses of African Americans smoothly sailing along and going for a joyous ride with this American Nation-State. We are trying to survive and tread these dangerous and deadly waters like we've been doing since we got here. Those handful of token figureheads DO NOT represent the masses.
I felt the need to state that NOT to defend African Americans or make it ABOUT us, but I wanted to address some of the issues you were raising regarding Barack Obama and the African American community in general. They are not necessarily one in the same. AND I feel there are MANY grounds on which we could collectively stand together if we were willing to do so. There have been members of both African American communities and Native/Indigenous communities who have sold each other out for a variety of reasons. Some Natives chose to work against African Americans, some African Americans have chosen to work against Natives--and of course each group has had their own internal betrayals as well. But we must also remember that we have been able to find common ground and shared experience in other circumstances too. So there IS room and hope if we are willing. If we are not judgemental and if we are envisioning a liberated experience for us all, its certainly worth a looksee.
In ALL sincerity, I (as do many of us) APPRECIATE your voice because we rarely EVER get to hear the Native/Indigenous perspective in this way (another crying shame). But that doesn't have to ALWAYS be the case and I feel like with discussions like these we can work towards mutual understanding.
I know you blog with this site a lot and I encourage you to blog and critique even MORE. We hear you and it helps to know what's happening. And I know there are a lot of different Native/Indigenous issues AND perspectives (as there are among Africans). So we must remain steadfast and continue.
much respect
Lester FallsAapart:
i'm genuinely curious what are indian kids to do once the leave the reservation? are they to integrate as much as they can into american society?
with all respect, that solutions sounds to me like those who would solve the problem of their kid being in a failing urban school by running to the private/suburban schools.
with all honest curiosity, when do you stand and fight to improve the place you are at?
wasn't the modern American nation state created as a place for Indians (and Africans) to disappear and die?
I can see where your advice makes sense. Part of me feels that way about this entire nation-state in general... that i need to "get my ass out as soon as i can." Some people feel that way about the ghettos in the cities... they need to get their asses out as soon as they can...
BUT that alone solves nothing... as an African, i believe that the individual cannot survive over time without his or her "tribe" (a fancy word for community in my opinion). so sure indian and african people might be adept at being kinetic but we (i can surely say "I") not not see any worth in being kinetic on my own.
i am going to have to depend on my community/tribe whether i fight or take flight.
Mizzy,
What makes you think I have to "defend" myself against anybody? I'm not defending myself. I clarified what I believe about reservations, rather than allow you to misrepresent what I believe. Go read your posts. You told everybody on this blog that I advocated the abolishment of reservations and the Federal Indian system. I don't believe that. I have never said that. So you lied about me. You should be defending yourself. Of course, the blogger-making-up-quotes-about-people-they-don't-like is a very new trope.
You're absolutely... Sherman Alexie.
I have really just wanted to say that for a really long time!
Now that I have got that off my chest, so to speak.
I am not sure you are not splitting hairs on the point about federal Indian policy, and reservations. I understand what you You are advocating for when you talk about the liberation of the individual. (I started this blog by discussing a political campaign and it's policy in 'Indian Country') But, whether the exodus you describe is made en masse or individual by individual, the only difference I can see is that it will have resulted in the abandonment of a reservation, and it happens all the time.
I will admit... the thought of a world without federal Indian policy is one that has crossed my mind. But it's such a complex issue its not something I would advocate.
I misquoted you. I guess that will teach me to misquote well known authors in public forums.
As for my criticism of certain themes in American Literature, I dislike little orphan Annie for the same reasons I dislike a handful of other stories. A friend reminded me that such stories serve a certain purpose in literature... mostly to scare the hell out of people. And I do know it first hand from the stories I have heard all my life.
still curious... is "the thought of a world without federal Indian policy" essentially a vision of indians fully integrated into the U.S.?
No, it's a thought about not having the federal government act as a parent. The stereotypical idea of the U.S. government as parent and Natives as children. That is how the relationship has been described over and over again ad naseum in law and policy. There has been a lot of work to undo that, really important work. I think that is part of the core of that thought, of a world in which Native people are not infantilized. That is what it is.
@mizzy:
--
i dig that. that seems like an obvious expectation to me.
i guess i'm wanting to understand more how the u.s. infantilizes natives and maybe even if/how natives allow themselves to be infantilized.
is the way the U.S. infantilizes natives mainly about the how the government lends a helping hand (via res healthcare, etc) yet keeps strings and carrots attached? and if so what are those strings and carrots that keep indian folks biting?
and what would a world without federal indian policy look like? what would indians relationship be with the government? neither full citizen or full alien? somewhere inbetween? a status that currently does not exist? or is that already their status?
It sounds sort of corn-ballish to write... but it is nonetheless true that treaty language included phrases such as, "Great White Father" when referring t the federal government/and or the President. So, I guess if Obama were to be the Democratic nominee and if he were elected President, then that metaphor is no longer needed.
Our legal status in the U.S. as Native is that of "wards" of the federal government. It is Indian law and it is a modern leviathan. Law as it pertains to Natives is so complicated and so convoluted, it seems almost impossible to separate, old, racialized metaphors from the law itself. And of course, it always goes back to the land. Always.
so indian law protects and limits natives at the same time.
so i guess some natives value the protections of it enough to where they won't risk loosing it by challenging it.
and others are willing to take such a risk in order to achieve a more freer status.
Post a Comment