Rather, I was in the position of a spore which, having finally accepted its destiny as a fungus, still wonders if it might produce penicillin.
–Ayi Kwei Armah
Not to get off topic, but please stop using the term <b>Native Americans</b>.
Everyone knows that they are not native to the American continent.
Now we also know that they were not the first people here.
spoke, you’re a pretty sharp poster, but this one time you’re out to lunch.
There’s no irony in this post and Apple has Zambezi’s number here.
If this isn’t racism, there’s no peanuts at the circus.
And Mr. Zambezi’s heritage is not an issue. It has nothing to do with anything. It’s merely a cheap device to qualify an assertion that cannot be proven.
I could just as easily claim to be a Brazilian farmer who is against the slash and burn of the rain forests.
When Mr. Zambezi claims to have Indian blood, I am reminded of the old refrain:
“Some of my best friends are so and so.”
Apple, when you’re right, you’re right.
Major: So who was here before the Amerinds?
Though I would have stated the original point more carefully than Mr.Zambezi did, those criticizing Mr.Zambezi for making blanket statements are beating a straw man. It is uncharitable and unreasonable to interpret his statements as meaning that all Indians and only Indians are doing damage to the environment, but of course I understand that it’s a lot harder to take issue with the real point, and it gives us a lot less to feel smug and superior about.
The problem, in a nutshell, is:
spoke: you got me there. :o Maybe I need to clarify: the statement you quoted is racist, but that’s because oppressors tend to be f one race/religion. As an example, the Chinese probably hated their Japanese oppressors during WW2, and no doubt any number of peoples in what is now Western Europe hated those sneaky Roman bastards. History is full of repetition, etc., etc. And as for criticizing a group to which you don’t belong, maybe I should have said “a group/race whose experiences you don’t share”. I don’t know what it’s like to be a Cuban exile in America any more than Bill Clinton knows what it’s like to be a nisei, or Mr. Zambezi knows what it’s like to be a Native American who grew up on or near a reservation. Maybe we can better understand what motivates people of other races, but we can never understand what it’s like to be them.
I tell, you, some days I understand why contractual language is so lengthy and tedious. Anyone can read anything they want to into a statement. Especially if they are looking for a certain conclusion.
WallyM7 wrote
Let me be clear on what you’re saying here, Wally. Do you mean to imply that it is racist to point out the environmentally destructive practices of a Native American group? Do Native Americans get a free pass on environmental destruction? If a Native American group is guilty of hypocrisy, is it taboo to point that out? Must we turn a blind eye? I don’t see how that furthers our common goal of ignorance-fightin’.
How would one go about pointing out this ironic situation in a “non-racist” way. Is it even possible?
I still think the title of the thread was intended as a bit of irony to incite potential posters (and Lord knows it seems to have worked). I don’t think the OP is intentionally or seriously racist. Only Mr. Zambezi knows for sure, I suppose.
BTW:
Geez Wally, I hope you’re not accusing me of racism, too. If you are, I might have to open up a separate thread to broil your sorry ass! 
I’ve read this entire thread, and I’ve got to chime in on this one.
Spoke- and Mr.Zambezi, both of you are guilty not only of racism by generalization, but of racism by ignorance. You both have made the point that Native Americans are hypocrites because of their fishing practices. Has it ever occurred to you that the INDIVIDUALS involved in these practices couldn’t give a rat’s ass about how the outside world feels about what they’re doing; since these INDIVIDUALS (get the point?) never laid any claims to being “green”, then they are not hypocrites? Are they responsible for claims of Native American spiritual and environmental superiority made most likely by the very same New Age, idealistic, middle class people who now vilify them?
Native Americans that engage in fish harvesting (or decimation or destruction, or what-the-hell-ever you want to call it), however environmentally impactful their methods may be, are doing it to make a near-subsistence wage. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Native Americans have not cashed in on the casino craze; they are not perpetuating the “myth” that they are or have been spiritually superior to the white man; and they are most definitely not getting rich off of commercial fishing. To state that they are is generalizing, ignorant, and marginalizing the Native Americans’ situation.
Ask any reservation-dwelling (and city-dwelling) Indian, and they’ll tell you, it’s pretty hard to live up to the expectations of idealistic white people when you’re trying to overcome alcoholism and suicide rates several times the national average, when you’re trying to keep your heritage and language from being lost in the blizzard of America’s assimilating culture, and when you’re trying to overcome the stereotype that you have it made since you get a pittance of a tax break and live in rent-free housing. Well, a tax break don’t mean dick when you don’t have an income, and the rent-free housing on many reservations makes the projects in South Central L.A. and Hell’s Kitchen look like the fucking Four Seasons. We’re talking no indoor plumbing and daylight coming though the walls.
I know that no one has brought up these aforementioned specific points, but I think it’s absolutely necessary to keep these issues in mind when bitching about the Native Americans destroying the environment. I myself am just as concerned as the next person about the changing environment, and I do my part. But I have a job, a beautiful family, and a pretty damn good life overall, so I can afford to worry about abstract issues that don’t immediately and directly affect my life. The Native Americans, however, like a lot of indviduals and ethnic groups, have more important shit to worry about, like staying sane and eking out a living.
So, Spoke and Zambezi, unless you have actually walked in someone’s shoes and lived through their troubles, if you make generalizations and false assumptions about a people in the course of defending your opinion, be they Native American, African-American, Asian, Irish, Latino, or fucking Martian, you are racists through and through.
So fuck off.
You can call me the King of Futility
There’s a purpose to my actions, I just haven’t found it yet
You can call me the Crown Prince of Irony
It’s a crown I wear with dubious pride; it keeps falling down as I swim against the tide
Crown-Prince-of-Irony:
A-fucking-men!
Rather, I was in the position of a spore which, having finally accepted its destiny as a fungus, still wonders if it might produce penicillin.
–Ayi Kwei Armah
Valid points crown prince. And, if I may say so, a great diatribe abrogating all responsibility from the individual. On one hand, you state that any attempt to generalize is racist. Then you state that the NA’s have no individual responsibility. You can generalize to appologize for them, but I have to individualize to criticize. Can I please be allowed into this system of yours?
Given this statement, which is more or less true, let me rephrase the OP: The individual indians of the tribe at La Push are individual idiots because they are destroying one of the major natural resources on which they rely for survival. Thus they are dooming future generations’ ability to feed themselves.
Let me ask this. If the indians had it so freaking hunky-dory before the evil white man showed up (an acceptable generalization), then why can’t they just keep on with their old ways and forget about buying the TV or even living in a house? They didn’t need cash before we came.
Interesting that despite your heritage you were able to adapt and be successful.
Touché, Prince of Irony. I probably did commit a couple of sins of generalization (as debaters on both sides of this issue have done).
However, if you peruse my posts, you will also find this nugget:
…which pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole issue.
I just get tired of all the propaganda suggesting that Native Americans are somehow spiritually superior to the rest of us, or innately attuned to environmental concerns. They are subject to the same foibles as everyone else.
I notice that Johnny Angel’s post has been totally ignored. Serves him right for making a calm, reasonable, intelligent, clear summary of the real issues involved. And right here in the Pit, too—the nerve of the guy! Probably one of them @#$$! ignorance-fighters…
Kimstu
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough for you. My sincere apologies. The point I’m trying to make is that “responsibility” can be a subjective thing. When the majority of an entire people is struggling just to survive, the INDIVIDUALS doing the struggling have vastly different priorities than you or I.
Take for instance the infamous buffalo runs that everyone is citing. Ignoring for the moment the enormous and tragic waste of meat, hide etc. involved in that sort of hunt, those hunts typically only occurred during times of famine, as after unusually cold winters, and thus served their intended purpose, which was simply to minimize effort while maximizing return. It doesn’t do much good when a hunting party of 20 goes on a week long hunt, using traditional methods, and only 5 have the energy to come back, leaving their comrades behind to die. So, they use the easiest method possible, carry what meat they can and leave the rest to rot. How tragic it must be to be literally starving to death, and have to leave tons of perfectly good meat behind? If you can imagine this, you must realize that the Native Americans have never had it so “freaking hunky-dory”(my emphasis).
We can transpose this situation on to the issue at hand. The Native Americans are probably using the fishing methods that they use because: a)they have a staggering shortage of able-bodied working age men, so must resort to potentially wasteful methods to maximize efficiency,
b)they are trying to maintain the tradition of living off the land, but also trying to make a living at the same time, and c)these fishing practices bring together Native Americans in a way they haven’t been together for 100 years. Tribe members work side by side to work towards the same goal.
Mr.Zambezi, you said “…they are destroying one of the major natural resources on which they rely for survival. Thus they are dooming future generations’ ability to feed themselves.”
A primary issue for Native Americans today is not how to feed future generations, but whether or not there will be any future generations.
You also said:
My question to you is, who is jumping on the ones responsible for destroying the populations of native peoples. And before you absolve our current generation and government of any responsibility for something that went down 100 years ago, keep in mind that the decimation of Native American culture, language, and history is still going on. Natives living on reservations suffer from social problems that you cannot even comprehend, and Natives that leave the reservations are pressured to assimilate into a society that places individual material want over cultural importance.
But I digress. Both you and spoke- seem intent on simplifying the very complex issues that Native Americans face today (and have faced since before the white man came). You both want to boil it down to generalizations of “responsibility”. Keep in mind that responsibility is a very subjective thing. Both you and I can afford the luxury of feeling responsible for the environment, but you cannot force your priorities and morals upon people in situations you do not understand. Like responsibility, priorities and morals are subjective. Speaking of morals, I believe my previous sentence addresses a point brought up by Johnny Angel.
[quote]
Thus, these practices by certain Indian tribes are legally permisible(sic), but morally questionable.
[quote]
(happy, Kimstu?)
And finally, to address your final statement in that post, Mr.Zambezi, you said:
[quote]
Interesting that despite your heritage you were able to adapt and be successful.
[quote]
You can call me the King of Futility
There’s a purpose to my actions, I just haven’t found it yet
You can call me the Crown Prince of Irony
It’s a crown I wear with dubious pride; it keeps falling down as I swim against the tide
Sorry, I goofed on the UBB code for bold. I get sloppy when I’m pissed off.
Times change, weather changes, the economy changes. Successful species and people adapt. Many farmers lost their way of life during the industrial revolution. Millions of americans have lost their cultural roots and are now referred to as the lucky whites. I am sorry, but I can’t possibly understand how one would choose to live in the conditions you describe over a matter of culture.
as far a responsibility being subjective: You can boil anything down that you liek as being entirely subjective to the point that all meaning is blanched from the discussion. Cold Blooded Murder can be moraaly ethical if you create a completely subjective paradigm.
And they are damaging the fish supply. Yes it is for their “survival”. Japanese gill netters and clear cutters and a million other people are laying waste to nature to make a buck to feed their families. However, in the US, laws are passed to curtail such actions. And smack dab in the middle is a people just killin away. For whatever reason they are doing it, it is wrong, short sighted and harmfull. Does the reason matter all that much.
Or are you in favor of no theft laws for the starving?
Crown Prince of Irony wrote:
Do you have a source for this explanation? Because my understanding is that we have just enough evidence to establish that it did happen – the piles of bones and eyewitness accounts from early european explorers – but do we actually have records that show that it was only practiced during times of famine? Or, is this a guess based on the assumption that the Indians must have had a good reason for apparently destructive behavior?
Good point Johnny.
More manufactured facts:
4 hunts and they would be out of hunters. I imagine that they, like other primitive peoples, would be smart enough to eat some of the game before they came back to the tribe, thus saving their weak comrades. But then again, maybe they didn’t have enough money for bic lighters to start A fire and had to wait till they got back to their Amana Deluxe electric stoves to cook the meat.
But, hey, maybe the white man didn’t wipe out the NA’s. Maybe they just went on too many hunts and all died because of a 25% death rate on hunts.
This is my last word on the subject, as I am getting bored with repeating myself to prejudiced idiots. (I’m sure those of you who hate long posts will dance with joy; I’m happy to oblige you, and hold no hard feelings.)
I said:
You said:
What I said was in the context of a tribe struggling though a famine. I think I made that pretty obvious, but if you need more explanation, I’m happy to indulge you. A traditional hunting party, traveling on foot (as we are arguing about these hunts occurring before white man invaded en masse, there were few or no horses), would have low or no fatalities during times of plenty, when hunters’ energy levels and stamina are up. During a famine, when hunters’ energy levels and stamina are at their lowest, and fatality rates run much higher, methods normally considered wasteful must be used. Buffalo runs allowed for a lower risk factor, and higher return factor. I’m not denying that they may have occasionally occurred when not absolutely necessary, but the primary reason for them was simple self-preservation.
And on that note, to address Johnny Angel, who said:
We actually have plenty of evidence to support the theory that Native Americans hunted primarily on foot, using weapons. Thousands of examples of pictograms, paintings, and artifacts show that the primary mode of hunting was with the spear, bow, and flint knife. There are few discoveries documenting mass killings from buffalo runs or other means on a regular basis. Keep in mind that these pictograms and artifacts were not just decoration, they were like a written history, and considered by many archeologists and anthropologists to be good indicators of the Native Americans’ customs and way of life. So please pardon the Native Americans for not writing down their hunting methods in plain English, for the benefit of this debate; how rude of the ignorant savages.
And regarding the eyewitness accounts of early European settlers, it’s a widely accepted fact that many reports on native behavior by early explorers and settlers (not just in North America, but around the world) were wild hyperbole, and to be taken with a grain of salt.
But you know what? No one has addressed the issue I brought up in my first two posts: that individuals fighting for their lives and cultures have different priorities than you or I. Right now, I am well fed, own a warm home, have stock options, and a pretty good life. But if I were in a situation where I feared for my life, my future, and the future of my culture, my priorities would be different.
Let me put this way. I can say, right now, “I wouldn’t want to be the direct cause of the extinction of an entire species,” and mean it. But if my family were starving, and I was given the choice of watching them slowly waste away, or feeding them with the last spotted owl in the world, you can be damn skippy that I’d think to myself “fuck the bird, I want to save my wife and daughter.” If you think you wouldn’t make the same choice, then those are your priorities. It makes you no better or worse than me, just means that you forfeit your position at the top of the food chain in deference to a small cog in a much larger ecosystem.
Does this mean that Native Americans should be allowed to single-handedly destroy the environment? No. While they may be affecting the environment with their actions, they are also trying to maintain their dignity and way of life through these same actions. And when people like you refuse to take into account the enormous pressures and tragedy that brought them to this position, you cheapen their very existence. It all boils down to the fact that they could give less than a shit about what you think about them, which is my OP. Walk in their shoes for the last 400 years, and then you might have a different outlook.
You can call me the King of Futility
There’s a purpose to my actions, I just haven’t found it yet
You can call me the Crown Prince of Irony
It’s a crown I wear with dubious pride; it keeps falling down as I swim against the tide
Prince, you are just making shit up. You have no foundation for you figures or facts about this so called “famine” scenario. I can’t argue with one who basis his argument on a self serving fiction.
Nor do you know about the conditions of the indians at La Push. You don’t know if they are starving. This is the US for Christ’s sake. There are many, many options. They are not taking any of them. From what I saw, they were in the same financial boat as the whites in the area.
You said
This is my last word to you as you are obviously inventing facts to support your belief when one’s beliefs should be based on the facts. Go write some children’s story’s, you have a flare for story telling…hey, maybe you haven’t lost all of your NA culture after all!
Now go shoot some bald eagles, you deserve it.