I have been spending a significant amount of my time thinking about the NSA panel we had on Wednesday. Let me first say this: I support First Nations and their agendas. What has happened in the past is horrific and what continues to happen is despicable. I hate it, and if I could wake up tomorrow and be a European, I would. (God knows Germany has the lowest unemployment rates seen in the last 10 years.) Now, I don't pretend to be an expert on Indian Affairs, but I did live on the Flathead Indian Reservation and spent many a long night writing feature stories that highlighted the successes of our reservation as well as overarching problems, systemic in nature and prevalent on reservations across the U.S. I covered powwows, correctly referring to the garments the tribal members (tribal is the preferred term for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes) wore as regalia. I covered tribal education, tribal health, tribal programs that supported the elderly, the tribes' stance on medical marijuana and even new businesses sponsored by the tribes. I worked with the CSKT, became friends with its members, and the photos and stories I wrote about Indian Education/health won awards in Montana — which I mention only to infer that Indian issues were important and the Indian face was not a forgotten one in the state.
The panel raised some interesting points and most of what was said, I agree with. However, I would caution the panel to be less divisive in their presentation. I want to stand with NSA, but if NSA points at my white skin and says that I'm the source of their problems - that I am the enemy - then I don't know where to stand. I didn't choose to be born into my body as a white person, descendent of settlers and colonists, as they didn't choose a member of a First Nation. Let's recognize that and move forward on a united front.
The Native Americans are not alone in their forced assimilation, constant reinforcement of negative stereotypes, victimization by the government, and reinforced poverty. Their particular history is unique, but their marginalization is not. There are bridges to be built and alliances to be made.
There's an excellent story in last week's Economist touching many Native American issues, including sovereignty. I will bring it to class if anyone would like to read it.
Also, here is the link to it on the article on the economist's website: http://www.economist.com/node/21552208
I would like to read the article... I agree with you on the fact that being confrontational does not necessarily open canals for dialogue and learning (it even hinders communication). Having a historical memory (I don't know it this is the correct translation for "memoria histórica") is important, and we can learn about history, our history and the history of others, and it must be a dialectic process.
ReplyDeleteI will bring the article for you!! I agree with you, there are various methods of opening channels of communication and alienation is not one of them. It reminds me somewhat of the mainstreaming feminism into official organizations in development - shifting Women in Development to Gender and Development - thus becoming mainstream and inclusive. This made the idea less radical and more comprehensive, but it also lost a bit of its edge and became institutionalized. In the end it was inevitable - a movement can't move on its own! It needs partnerships, even if the partners are the opposite. (i.e. men and non-native peoples)
ReplyDeleteI agree that the NSA made it hard to "stand with" their cause. While their presentation was passionate, informative, and absolutely valid, I felt that they fell short in inciting a move for action for several of the reasons you've mentioned above. One point of the conversation that I found particularly confusing was when someone asked if they found themselves teaming up with other movements to create a network of allies. In response, Tessa (I believe) said they have been working alongside the occupy movement to some extent, but that she prefers only to work with the "real" 99%, not the 1% trying to rally behind the 99%'s cause. While I can understand that to be frustrating, I would think that any sort of ally is a positive relationship and a potential to expand the movement to new a portion of the population, regardless of their position in society or beliefs had about other social causes. It almost came off like they only wanted allies that had struggled in the same way (or in a similar way) in which they struggled, which absolutely seems alienating to those out-group members wishing to support the cause.
ReplyDelete