The only good indian...

In My Humble Opinion
1

Tho I usually read fiction, I have recently been on a nonfiction, American history kick, and seem to be in an “indian” phase. Recently finished “On the Rez” and am in the process of reading “The Invasion of America” and re-reading “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.”

I have always been somewhat sympathetic to the history of the American indians, considering them a conquered peoples who have not been treated well by their conquerors. I consider it somewhat hypocritical for today’s U.S. government to criticize other nations for actions such as “ethnic cleansing” or civil rights abuses, when our current wealth rests, in part, upon our having done the same. And I am pleased to hear examples of indians using “the system” to their advantage today, whether hunting, fishing, gambling, seeking benefits, etc. Feel it is little compensation for what they went through in the past.

My recent reading has somewhat increased my level of unease. How significant is it for today’s society to continually acknowledge that our ancestors really acted improperly towards the indigenous Americans? How should this be taught in our schools? It seems to me that I hear far more about reparations for slavery, than I do about indian rights. I’m not sure which was worse.

I’m interested in hearing your opinions on this type of thing. Sorry I did not phrase my initial proposition more clearly. It is just that our nation’s past concerning manifest destiny and our government’s dealings with America’s indigenous people gives me a sense of unease. And I would appreciate hearing some of you Dopers’ views.

If you think I am just a bleeding heart liberal, I’d like to hear that as well, along with your views on why you do not find this portion of our nation’ history at all unsettling. To what extent should our perception of today be clouded by our judgment of how we got here? Or do we simply bury the past?

Perhaps I am simply reading the wrong books, and someone could point me towards titles suggesting that US policy towards indians in 19th century (and earlier-and probably later) was not reprehensible.

2

America and Australia share a past of treating the original land owners shamefully. After all these years, we finally seem to be reaching a point where we must face up to the misdeeds of the past, and reach some sort of agreement.

The problem is, where does it end?

In theory, every last scrap of Australia (and America) once belonged to the original Australians (and Americans), and we can’t hand it all back. We need to sit down and reach an agreement with the representatives of our native people, and hand over part of the country to them. We need to settle some financial assistance on them so they can put their land to use. We need to help them get on their feet, and keep them that way - but we can’t keep doing it forever. There has to come a point when the grandchildren of the people who lost their land forgive the grandchildren of the people who took the land.

From all I hear and see in the media, I feel that our native Australians aren’t prepared to forgive, no matter what we do. I feel that is unfair, because I personally did not commit any crimes against them, I didn’t have the opportunity to prevent others committing crimes against them, and I do not have the power to change history for them. This is why I think we need to make a final settlement with them, and then we all need to turn our backs on that chapter of our past, and embrace the future together. I just don’t see how that will ever be possible. How can you compensate an entire race for the loss of an entire country, the theft of their language, their way of life and their history? You can’t.

It wouldn’t be so bad if everything was clear, but there is always someone muddying the waters. For instance, in the middle decades of the last century, many Australian Aboriginal children were taken from their parents, and raised by so-called White Australians (Europeans). These children were raised with no knowledge of their history, their customs or their language. Most were isolated from others of their race. Those children have grown into adults who resent the people who took their past from them. But the two sides disagree on the method of their removal.

The indigenous people say they were taken against their parents will, ripped from the loving arms of their families, never to see them again. They were taken from their people, and raised by strangers. Some were well treated, some were abused. The people who took them say that the children were unwanted, given up by parents who weren’t interested in them, or removed because their lives were in danger because they were illegitimate/half-white/etc and therefore hated by their own people. They also claim that some of the children were given up by parents who wanted them to have “a white man’s education”.

So many years have passed, and so little unbiased documentation exists that it is hard to tell who is speaking the truth. Many prominent indigenous Australians have come forward and said they were Stolen Children (aka The Stolen Generation), but others have allegedly admitted later that they were surrendered not stolen. Yet surely tricking an uneducated, poor and frightened mother into giving up her child is stealing, making it harder again to tell what really happened.

This issue is going to trouble Australia for a long time to come. Again, how do you compensate people for the loss of the life they would have had if you hadn’t interfered?

In short, I guess I don’t see how these situations can ever be resolved. One side will always resent the other, and there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do to make up for what was done.

3

Very interesting discussion topic, Dinsdale. I enjoyed On the Rez very much. I spent a few months on that reservation a few years ago, and I was amazed by how skillfully and accurately the author was able to describe life on Pine Ridge. I’m curious to know your impression of Pine Ridge after reading the book. Did you think “Why would anyone want to live there?” or “Why would anyone ever leave there?” I have such a positive memory of Pine Ridge, and even though all of the negative points described by the author are true, there is an overwhelming sense of community, freedom, and beauty in Shannon County.

Looking back to my own public school education, one of the things that strikes me is how much of the information about Native Americans was presented as “in the past.” My teachers and textbooks presented a very sympathetic picture of the Native Experience (this was in the feel good 1970s) as a series of noble native americans, and their mistreatment at the hands of very ignorant white persons who might have meant well, but were obviously limited by the blinders of their oppressive society. I think it might be more important, or at least as important to teach children about actual issues that are going on in the present day. That there are in fact living breathing Native American persons. That these Native American persons get up, go to work, have families, etc etc and don’t go around hunting buffalo all day. That a Native American person who lives in an apartment building is just as “indian” as someone who lives in a longhouse. That Native Americans have names like Fred Jones in addition to names like Little Bird Feather.

I know you mentioned you were in a non-fiction kick lately, but you might want to put the fiction of Sherman Alexie on your reading list. He does some very engaging contemporary stuff about everyday life on the reservation.

4

Yes, I like Sherman Alexie very much. Read Reservation Blues, The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight, and The Toughest Indian that I can recall.

I also frequently remember a novel I read a while back about a SW American indian who excelled at basketball and was recruited by the University of Illinois. Many very funny themes. The tribe venerated corn, and U of I is a big ag school with a historic corn plot. And their “mascot” is an indian. To say the student became disillusioned is an understatement. Anyone know the name and author?

Dalva, by Jim Harrison, is another novel I recall with “Indian” themes.

My current interest flowed from having read DeVoto’s excerpted Lewis and Clark’s journals.

I recall having read selection of OtR in the Atlantic. What I chose to focus on was SuAnne Big Crow’s indignation at the presentation of the “Tragedy” (or whatever exact word) on the rez, while actively ignoring anything positive. I am sure there are many excellent things about living there - if nothing else, the land itself is starkly beautiful. And I find much to respect in what little I know about traditional religions/philosophies. But all the public sees and hears is drunkenness, violence, trash, poverty, etc.

This summer I spent a couple of days at a friend’s cabin on an Indian reservation in Wisconsin (the tribe sold some land for commercial development). I found it interesting to hear the non-indian locals talk about the indians and the rez, and then compare it with what I would perceive if I did not have the “benefit” of their tutelage.

I’d enjoy continuing this discussion - right now have to get back to work, though.

Your comment on indians living in apartments makes me think of distinctions between cultural and religious jews. An indian stockbroker living in Chicago and attending catholic church, is certainly a different type of indian than one who lives on the rez, does sacred dances, etc.

5

I think allowing casinos only on tribal lands would be more than fair compensation.

Of course, I belong to a long lost tribe that was located at the current corner of Michigan and Wacker in Chicago, and I am the only surviving member - the “Gazooties” :smiley:

6

In the category of real life stranger than fiction, I recall a few years ago when a tribe wished to rent/buy office space on Michigan Ave., and declare it a part of their reservation. Another guy in my office did some work related to that. I’ll ask him about it later today.

I don’t know that indians specifically need “compensation” Gazoo. It isn’t as tho, for example, we would give the Sioux the Black Hills, and they would resume their lifestyle of centuries ago. OTOH, when I hear of the amount of land controlled by BLM, and the death of small towns in the plains and other rural areas, increasing indian landholdings does not seem an impossibility.

It strikes me as more important, however, for us to incorporate into our culture an acknowledgment of the impropriety of the way we treated the indians. Schoolbooks, films, could portray the native peoples as other than “savages” who were “in the way” of the “civilized white man.” Without such acknowledgment, I feel it is difficult for us to criticize human rights violations abroad.

And perhaps increased government assistance (not just $, but education, etc.) would be appropriate to improve opportunities for indians. Not all reservations have casinos. And alcoholism is a tremendous problem.

What caused you to be on Pine Ridge, delphica? Do you believe the indians need help? What kind? Are they appropriately represented in our schools and culture?

7

I unfortunately do not have very much to add to this – I read Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee earlier this summer and consider myself in general agreement with the others in this thread.

I do, however, want to voice a concern; as Dinsdale just mentioned in the above post, the native peoples have been portrayed as “savages” who were “in the way” of the “civilized white man”. This is true, and deplorable. However, it is an equal injustice to go to the other extreme in a kneejerk reaction and depict the natives as “noble” and “in tune with the world” and European settlers as “greedy” and “exploitative”. No one has done it yet in the thread- I’m just concerned that someone may.

There were atrocities on each side, and there’s a middle ground that should be found together.

8

U.S. history inre to American Indians is an example of two very different cultures clashing in a very ugly way for both cultures. Unfortunately, the worst part of this history may have been from 1865 or so until 1965 or so, were there was a concerted effort to effectively eliminate American Indians from the cultural landscape of this country. The U.S. Government cannot really defend some of its policies from that time period. The goals was to erase Native Americans, whether by introducing them into white culture, banning portions of their culture (i.e. Ghost Dance). The U.S. government also had policies designed to encourage the sale of tribal lands, they began eliminating tribes by official terms, they forced Native Childrens into schools by which they could force white culture on them (my Grandfather ran away from one), they tried to abrogate treaty rights. It isn’t a pretty picture of the past.

Noble Savage is a romanticized view of American Indians as old as exploration of the U.S. mainland. There has long been a set of dual false images of Native Americans. The Souless Savage that must be eliminated, and the Brave Warrior or Beautful Maiden. Fact is, the savage view has begun to die, but the Noble Native lives on because it is PC and it makes good Hollywood.

Did natives commit what would today be considered atrocities? Yes. Were they in the magnitude of those committed by the Spanish, French, British, and Americans? No.

9

My humble admiration to the OP. This is a terrific topic and is a “gimme” for Great Debates.

Please allow me to qualify my response by saying that my ancestral heritage is partially indigenous to North America, as is that of many Americans. I believe that reparations to the Native American people have been inequitable, but there are more tribal success stories today than in recent history. Granted, most of the revenues generate from gambling, but the profits are used to enhance the lives of tribal members, with few exceptions.

**Cazzle wrote:

America’s largest Native American population, by both size and density, is in the State of Oklahoma. Oklahoma was originally the part of the country handed over, or as the American History books teach us, the “Indian Territory”. It is somewhat ironic that Oklahoma is currently the only state with a Native American population that doesn’t have a single reservation within it. Instead, it has five tribal territories that collectively encompass the entire state. Each of the five “civilized tribes” governs its tribal members within its territory (who are BTW subject to state and local statutes). Don’t ask me how it works, I don’t know anyone that can explain it adequately. It’s a complex system of winks and handshakes, as far as I can tell.

So, let us hypothesize that the state of Oklahoma does not exist. Instead, we have the “Indian Territory”, subdivided by its tribal territories. How would the tribes benefit by gaining their independence from the USA? How do the “pros” outweigh the “cons”? I very much wish it were practical, but it is not.

**delphica wrote:

**

This is true. Some have both. My Indian name is “Runs With Scissors”. :wink:

**Ino wrote:

**

This reads like anglo rhetoric to me. Why not simply tell the truth? Many “savage” attacks were employed by both sides. It was war. You’d fight like hell too if someone was trying to burn down your home. It might not have received a name, but it was most certainly war. There were also many noblemen on both sides, and there still are. Unfortunately, not enough of them are in show business.

Native American History is not a topic, it’s a sub-topic. It is as indigenous to American History as its people are to America. However, the rules state that the winner gets to write the history books. In states like Oklahoma, the history is evidently a little more even-handed than it is elsewhere. We are proud of our heritage. A heritage that includes almost a full century as American citizens. Any proud Indian brave will tell you that no axe needs grinding that long.

10

I tried to phrase my concern as delicately as I could. I apologize if it sounded like anglo rhetoric.

11

Ino-

Don’t apologize. You were looking for clarification in a rational way. I’ve seen much worse in the way of “Anglo Rhetoric”.

12

Ino,

I agree with Jibby7, there is no need to apologize. I also tried to be delicate with the phrase “reads like anglo rhetoric”. It wasn’t directed at you specifically. I understood your point, and I appreciate it.

13

I’ve learned the hard way that the “noble savage” image of Native Americans is just as much a caricature as the “scalping savage” image. All too often many of us (myself included) seem to forget that Native Americans are not extinct, nor are they some mystical ideal. They’re people, no more inherently good or bad than non-Native Americans.

I went to a college where the mascot is the “Indian.” The school has not been pressured to give up this mascot (AFAIK) because it was “adopted” by the local Kiowas back in the 1950s. I have to wonder, though, when one of those rare Native American students sees all the stuff in the bookstore that shouts “I’m an MSU Indian!,” what do they think? Going to MSU certainly didn’t make them an Indian. And it didn’t make me one, either.

As to the comparison between the usurping of Native Americans and black slavery in the U.S., about the only thing they really have in common is that they were both unfortunate aspects of our history that are often uncomfortable to deal with. People stolen from their countries or a country stolen from its people – I don’t think you can really say one is worse than the other.

Both practices can only lead us today either to callousness or the realization that people are people.

14

I would like to calrify a point on Native Americans. Unfortunately, although I am officially recognized as Native American, this point may not be well taken by my Brethren.

In a historical context, territorial conquest is not an unusual occurence. The conquest of Native lands should be viewed no differently than the conquest of lands on other continents by agressors. I think whites are occasionally unduly criticized for what was “acceptable” behavior in the rest of the world at that time. What I find most deplorable is the ruthlessnes at which the conquest was carried out by a superior military, and the over one hundred years of oppression placed on Native Americans by the U.S. Government once their defeat was all but assured. For example, Napolean and France may have been able to conquer a large chunk of Europe, but they were fighting similarly strengthed militaries who, ultimiately, were able to repel them. The Euro-Indian wars, however, were on a very unequal footing. Now I don’t think Euro-Americans of that time were able to make that distinction. However, once victory was all but asured, I believed their heinous acts truly began. Some acts were performed by the military, but many more were performed by the Legislature, the Executive, and the beaurocracy of the day. What their acts, as a whole, consisted of was an attempted genocide. Their was an attempt to eliminate Indians, by hook or by crook.

Now, slavery was already falling into disregard by the time the U.S. came on the scene. We continued to perpetrate it. In some regards, we were more wrong in a historical context, by allowing slavery. However, despite all of the racism leveled against blacks/African Americans, Native Americans were more targeted to disappear, ultimately.

So, our levels of terrible behavior in each instance are roughly the same, but the historical context of each is slightly different.

15

Just a couple of more brief thoughts.

Government aid in any form may or may not be good. Aid often comes with an agenda. Education is a worthy endeavor, but for Native Americans, it must be done in a way sensitive to their cultures. Otherwise, were right backe to the Catholic boarding school/white alculturalization deal.

When reading on this topic, realize this. Most written works are very polarized. You are going to get one slant or another. I wrote a paper in college on treaty rights. I wrote it so that whites who were anti-Indian could understand the issues. It was good enough that my professor wanted to help me publish it. Before I agreed to his help, I felt I needed to submit it to a Native Group for their approval. They did not like it for a variety of reasons, but basically because it was simple and straight forward, not slanted. I did not publish it because of their disapproval. I wish I had.

16

Ferggie**-- my high school AND college mascots were both “Savages”. And, both still are. To compound the misery, our only famous alumni from my University are Reba McEntire and Dennis Rodman, and neither of them actually graduated.

How’s that for irony?