The Rights of Native Americans and First Nations

[hoots7]

I do not blame George Bush for everything I was simply using him as an example the US might relate to. But there can be NO excuse for his inadequately thought-through comment. No doubt had he had a chance to think about it he would have rephrased it less emotively but, as I say, it is a commonly held belief. 'If you do not agree with me you must be my enemy.' Or to put it another way 'I cannot possibly be wrong'. Either interpretation deserves being laughed out of court.

 

And I thought I did make it clear that it is equally the 'oppressed' societies themselves that prevent people being individual for the very reason I used the GB quote. If you do not express the perceived accepted view of the 'oppressed' society you are an outcast there too. Because if you are not with them, you are against them.

Are you saying that the victims of the "oppressed societies" are at fault along with the oppressive societies?

 

That would mean you blame the victim (for being oppressed) as well as the transgressor (for oppressing) right?

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I'm just trying to understand your position.

[Malchik]

In context, I am saying that certain posters in the thread talked about the 'ruling' or 'leading' society as being responsible for treating some groups as if they were, in one degree or another, unequal. For the sake of simplification I referred to them as 'oppressors' and 'oppressed'. You will note the use of inverted commas to indicate that the terms are for convenience only.

 

One argument used was that the 'oppressors' by viewing the 'oppressed' stereotypically tended to force the 'oppressed' into the straight-jacket of the stereotype.

 

My response was twofold. Firstly, that people can never be turned into sterotypes. This the original poster accepted was not what had been intended in the post.

 

The second point I made was that expressions of individuality (which give lie to stereotyping) are not only forbidden or discouraged by 'oppressors'. The requirement to conform, or not to express contradictory views, may equally be caused by the 'oppressed' themselves. In its most anodyne form this is called peer group pressure. It can be played upon by an 'oppressor' by using such expressions as 'dare to be different'.

 

Another poster has quite rightly observed that the human desire to belong encourages the need to conform, especially among those groups who may consider themselves to be 'oppressed' in some way. But such encouragement may and sometimes does spill over into enforcement - cold-shouldering, excommunication and even death being threatened to those who do have different opinions.

 

To that extent and within this context specifically, the inability to be an individual is not exclusively, and in some cases not even significantly, the responsibility of the 'oppressor'. In other words, if a group tends to appear to conform to a stereotype the reason may well lie within the members of that group themselves.

 

I hope this makes my point clear. At no point have I used the word 'fault'. That emotional word has no place in my clinical analysis.

[Chesto]

@ Chesto: What you're saying will further divide the people and further fuel the flames of racism. By having all the 'minorities' break away and form their own independent sects, there won't be any friendly co-mingling. The only way to eliminate racism is to unite the people, not divine them.

Umm, I still think you're not seeing that this has nothing to do with racism, Ninja. It's about the rights of Native people and what can be done to solve the misunderstandings between Natives and non-Natives. I don't expect an answer from you.

 

Ninja...I agree with you to the extent that to adhere to what I'm advocating will cause the 'division' to continue. Your laudable desire to eliminate racism, to have friendly co-mingling... is just that. A laudable desire.

True co-mingling, true mutual respect, true acceptance of another's 'difference' can only take place between equals. If one party in the relationship is perceived by the other, or themselves, to be inferior in any way then none of what you wish 'could' be can come about.

 

That is, basically, why I am advocating that the Natives ( as rob b uses that truncated term, I suppose I may ) concentrate on building up their own culture in their own way, and by using all the means that they have. No point trying to pretend that anything will change , really change, if the Native cultures don't get their own act together. Because the , mainly, white establishment will not do it for them. The establishment would much rather that they would just go away, because that is how the establishment wants to deal with all problems. I'm saying that the Natives should NOT go away. And if they 'stay' as a separate entity, then, of course, you're going to have division.

 

The blacks in America had to do the same thing. There were the leaders who advocated 'equality'; that is, they were saying to whitey 'Please accept us. We're just like you!'. Then there were the radicals who refused to ' turn the other cheek', who said 'We are who we are. You , whitey, can like it or you can ***k off. The whole Black Conciousness movement came from the latter. One can argue which was more efficacious in the long run. But I reckon that trying to be 'equal' ,ie the same, as the majority wouldn't have been enough.

[Chesto]

The second point I made was that expressions of individuality (which give lie to stereotyping) are not only forbidden or discouraged by 'oppressors'. The requirement to conform, or not to express contradictory views, may equally be caused by the 'oppressed' themselves. In its most anodyne form this is called peer group pressure. It can be played upon by an 'oppressor' by using such expressions as 'dare to be different'.

 

Another poster has quite rightly observed that the human desire to belong encourages the need to conform, especially among those groups who may consider themselves to be 'oppressed' in some way. But such encouragement may and sometimes does spill over into enforcement - cold-shouldering, excommunication and even death being threatened to those who do have different opinions.

 

To that extent and within this context specifically, the inability to be an individual is not exclusively, and in some cases not even significantly, the responsibility of the 'oppressor'. In other words, if a group tends to appear to conform to a stereotype the reason may well lie within the members of that group themselves.

 

Sorry if I'm mutli-posting: can't get the hang of 'quoting' from different sources.

 

Malchik... this is , of course, a truly western liberal view of how we wish things were done, and which, for the most part, I share. But... may I presume that you, like myself, are 'comfortable' being in a society in which we find ourselves in the majority? That, other than the normal individual need to succeed or just survive, we do not need to exert ourselves ,overmuch , to 'belong'. And, that if we suddenly found ourselves part of a put upon minority, we might have a different view of the methods that such a minority had to use to maintain its cohesion in the face of adversity.

 

I must immediately declare myself to be a hypocrite about this. I happen to ' like ' aspects of Native American culture and wish to see those Native societies survive and thrive within the MacMegaCutlture they find themselves in. There are cultural/religious/ethnic groups in the UK whose aspects I don't 'like' , and which I would probably consider a 'threat' to our Britishness, what ever that is.

[Jhaerlyn]

Jhaerlyn- I was speaking, mainly, about the Native Americans ( generic). I don't really understand which other 'groups' you may think I'm referring to.

I suppose the generalist tactics I espouse could be applied to any minority group that had a similar long history of traditions behind it, though I can not think of any that fit the bill other than certain reclusive religious sects. Only those more knowledgeable than I ( queue here! ) about First Peoples could say with any degree of certainty whether they, themselves, consider they are part of a larger homogeneous grouping, and not just a mixture of tribal groups who have been thrown together by their common treatment. Similar, in fact, to the way that blacks in America came together from their own tribal and ethnic backgrounds to create black consciousness and all that has come from that.

 

 

Chesto, you misunderstood me ... i'm sorry ..I should use quotes when refering to what people say ... :( when I said "groups" I was referring to this statement:

My 'study' of history shows that groups which stay together to maintain their traditions survive in the face of all the crap that the 'majority' around them throws at them

 

I wanted to know what groups had stuck together to maintain their traditions ... so I could better understand how to look at the issue and how to understand your point.

[Jhaerlyn]

And I thought I did make it clear that it is equally the 'oppressed' societies themselves that prevent people being individual for the very reason I used the GB quote. If you do not express the perceived accepted view of the 'oppressed' society you are an outcast there too. Because if you are not with them, you are against them.

To keep my self from getting confused... I"m going to try adressing one quote at a time :D

 

I'll say what I say to my middle schoolers when they have to write a paper -- be specific ... it helps us understand more exactly what you want to say. I do not agree with the above statement in every or even most cases. But since we are talking about the Native Americans, this statement is in complete error. The Native Americans did EVERYTHING possible to make themselves Acceptible. The Cherokee, for example, supported one of their Mixed Members, making him Chief, thinking that his mixed heritage would afford him acceptance in White Colonial Society ... it did not ... even his attempts at making the Cherokee a "literate" society were belittle by Colonials and europeans in general as a quiant act ... as if monkeys had done something human. .... When the Trouble with England began, some members of the Nation offered the Colonial Congress support in exchange for being allowed to be part of the Confederacy (what it was at that time) ... in other words they wanted to be included as equals for pledging their men and resources. They weren't even allowed to address the Congress. Native Americans did not start keeping themselves away from White European Society until well after it was OBVIOUS to them that there was nothing they could do to make themselves acceptable.

 

As for being accepting .... it is estimated that, between 1600 and 1800, several hundred Europeans a year would slip into Native American societies and never return. ... I'd get some support for these claims... but I can't find the book I got some of this from :( ... i will eventually ;)

[Jhaerlyn]

[Malchik... this is , of course, a truly western liberal view of how we wish things were done, and which, for the most part, I share. But... may I presume that you, like myself, are 'comfortable' being in a society in which we find ourselves in the majority? That, other than the normal individual need to succeed or just survive, we do not need to exert ourselves ,overmuch , to 'belong'. And, that if we suddenly found ourselves part of a put upon minority, we might have a different view of the methods that such a minority had to use to maintain its cohesion in the face of adversity.

 

I must immediately declare myself to be a hypocrite about this. I happen to ' like ' aspects of Native American culture and wish to see those Native societies survive and thrive within the MacMegaCutlture they find themselves in. There are cultural/religious/ethnic groups in the UK whose aspects I don't 'like' , and which I would probably consider a 'threat' to our Britishness, what ever that is.

 

I totally agree with you Chesto :) it's hard to understand the difficulties faced by an ostracized minority.

 

I've been fortunate in that I'm an accepted minority :D ... my family is Cuban and so up until the mid 80's actually found that we were somewhat respected ... and compared to other immigrant groups from below the tropics, still are. But I'm dark, unlike my family, and have been often mistaken for many of the "lesser" immigrant groups. When I lived in texas, I was able to understand the problems that Mexicans face in Texas. And There I did see what Malchik is referring to. Many people of Mexican origin have responded in an unproductive way to the prejudice they face there.... But then I think that's something that is with in the Culture and Heritage of Mexicans, because I find them, as a whole, not as individuals, to have like a ... inferiority complex. It gets manifested in suble ways ... for example, in the US the Spanish Music industry was spear-headed by people of Mexican heritage, and so, they keep a close contact to it. But because of what I consider theit tendacny to be "sensitive" to being Mexican ...they go OVER-BOard in giving special spotlight to EVERYthing mexican in music ... so that if they had award shows for "latin" music ... of the say 50 awards, 40 would be for some version or other of Mexican Music, from regional stuff that only a person from the region of Mexico has heard to severl awards that over lap, giving some of the same Mexican music groups several shots at an award. While the Rest of "latin" Music artist end up limited to compete for the remaining 10 awards. ... Mind you, this has been changing recently, with other ethnic hispanic groups gaining "power" ... but it's still relatively true. So I'm like you there are groups whose Cultures I dont necessarily like ... and others that I do ... :)

 

 

did I get way off topic? ...sorry I think I did ...

 

anyway, Its easy to say, hey grab your bootstrap and pull your boots on and get going .... But its quiet another to really Get up day after day and face each day with the determination to ignore what another says about you, especially when the other has not only said they are superior, but is descended from those who seemed to have Proved their superiority and rub it in your face at every opportunity, often times, without even thinking about it ...

 

 

... well .. gotta actually work now :D

[Malchik]

I am not disagreeing with most of what people have written but why is it assumed by most posters that I have said it is right or wrong to conform. I have not expressed an opinion either way and nor do I intend to. I am merely responding to Jhaelyn's original suggestion that it is the 'ruling' society that turns people into stereotypes. It is not. There are some ruling societies where individuality is regarded as a threat (aspects of modern China come to mind). There was the USSR during the Stalinist purges and the USA in the period of McCarthyism. But those extremes apart there has to be an element of it in all societies. There is no group where people are free to do exactly as they please but to a great extent in most western countries you can express a contrary opinion to any rule/law/held belief without fear of reprisals.

 

Within these 'civilised' societies are probably many groups that feel their culture, language, beliefs. traditions etc. are under threat of disappearing. They usually begin to undertake actions to preserve them. This gives the members of the threatened groups several options. They may join in fully, in part or not at all. Joining in does NOT make them stereotypes. Indeed in making a choice they are expressing their individuality, whatever choice they make. The problems arise where there is no realistic option given. (At it most extreme that would be 'if you try to leave we will kill you.) It still does not make the individuals stereotypes but to the rest of the world they are more likely to appear to be stereotypes because they are never allowed to be 'different'.

 

So, I am saying that if a minority group seems to behave as if made up of stereotypes it is a combination of circumstances. You cannot simply point to the 'ruling' society as the only cause.

 

Also, Chesto, it is easy to view alternative cultures through rose-coloured spectacles and believe we wish to see them preserved. In reality those of us with an 'easy' life in the west are very selective about which parts may be preserved. Traditions as old as the hills whether stamped out like human sacrifice among the Maya or (mostly) Sutee in India or still continuing such as female circumcision, arranged marriages etc. etc. are considered unacceptable. Even those groups we are talking about here (native Americans) do not wish to go back 400 years and give up everything. Some is seen as positive progress.

 

Even this much travelled individual, who in some ways laments the increasing evidence of international urban cloning, the ubiquity of jeans, television and packaged food, is aware that the alternatives 'quaint'. 'unique' and 'picturesque' often mean poor, insanitary and malnourished. Deciding what can and should be preserved is not relevant to this thread but like the stereotyping issue referred to above it is not a simple issue.

[Jhaerlyn]

I am not disagreeing with most of what people have written but why is it assumed by most posters that I have said it is right or wrong to conform. I have not expressed an opinion either way and nor do I intend to. I am merely responding to Jhaelyn's original suggestion that it is the 'ruling' society that turns people into stereotypes. It is not. There are some ruling societies where individuality is regarded as a threat (aspects of modern China come to mind). There was the USSR during the Stalinist purges and the USA in the period of McCarthyism. But those extremes apart there has to be an element of it in all societies. There is no group where people are free to do exactly as they please but to a great extent in most western countries you can express a contrary opinion to any rule/law/held belief without fear of reprisals.

 

Within these 'civilised' societies are probably many groups that feel their culture, language, beliefs. traditions etc. are under threat of disappearing. They usually begin to undertake actions to preserve them. This gives the members of the threatened groups several options. They may join in fully, in part or not at all. Joining in does NOT make them stereotypes. Indeed in making a choice they are expressing their individuality, whatever choice they make. The problems arise where there is no realistic option given. (At it most extreme that would be 'if you try to leave we will kill you.) It still does not make the individuals stereotypes but to the rest of the world they are more likely to appear to be stereotypes because they are never allowed to be 'different'.

 

So, I am saying that if a minority group seems to behave as if made up of stereotypes it is a combination of circumstances. You cannot simply point to the 'ruling' society as the only cause.

 

Also, Chesto, it is easy to view alternative cultures through rose-coloured spectacles and believe we wish to see them preserved. In reality those of us with an 'easy' life in the west are very selective about which parts may be preserved. Traditions as old as the hills whether stamped out like human sacrifice among the Maya or (mostly) Sutee in India or still continuing such as female circumcision, arranged marriages etc. etc. are considered unacceptable. Even those groups we are talking about here (native Americans) do not wish to go back 400 years and give up everything. Some is seen as positive progress.

 

Even this much travelled individual, who in some ways laments the increasing evidence of international urban cloning, the ubiquity of jeans, television and packaged food, is aware that the alternatives 'quaint'. 'unique' and 'picturesque' often mean poor, insanitary and malnourished. Deciding what can and should be preserved is not relevant to this thread but like the stereotyping issue referred to above it is not a simple issue.

 

 

Ah. Why didnt you say so?? :D j/k ... actually in a way I'm not. You weren't fully saying what you were meaning to say... and so we were confused ...and I think Each of us thought something different :D

its one of those things that happens when all the communication is happening in text. :( anyway ... let's see ...

 

anyway... just wanted to point out that my statement about the stereotypes wasn't a blanket statement for ALL oppressors over the oppressed. My statement was specifically addressing what we see happening to African Americans in this Country ... and its for many things, not just a default of being descendants of the oppressed.

 

 

... i'll think about it for a while and see if I can come up with away to illustrate what I was saying at that point .... and My Apologies for posting all over this thread :( i've got a lot of time on my hands, since I got all the tech problems taken care of for the most part :) ...

[hoots7]

I hope this makes my point clear. At no point have I used the word 'fault'. That emotional word has no place in my clinical analysis.

Yes, I think I understand your point now; the victims are being pressured by their oppressors & by their fellow victims (peer pressure). I used the word “fault”, I didn’t know how else to explain it, sorry.

 

 

But since we are talking about the Native Americans, this statement is in complete error. The Native Americans did EVERYTHING possible to make themselves Acceptible. The Cherokee, for example, supported one of their Mixed Members, making him Chief, thinking that his mixed heritage would afford him acceptance in White Colonial Society ... it did not ... even his attempts at making the Cherokee a "literate" society were belittle by Colonials and europeans in general as a quiant act ... as if monkeys had done something human. .... When the Trouble with England began, some members of the Nation offered the Colonial Congress support in exchange for being allowed to be part of the Confederacy (what it was at that time) ... in other words they wanted to be included as equals for pledging their men and resources. They weren't even allowed to address the Congress. Native Americans did not start keeping themselves away from White European Society until well after it was OBVIOUS to them that there was nothing they could do to make themselves acceptable.

 

As for being accepting .... it is estimated that, between 1600 and 1800, several hundred Europeans a year would slip into Native American societies and never return. ... I'd get some support for these claims... but I can't find the book I got some of this from :( ... i will eventually ;)

 

I agree with you, I will just point out (like I did before) that some Native Americans were warlike before the whit men came, those I feel should not get compensated because they were just defeated by a stronger enemy.

 

I still need to read-up on the First Nations history.

 

Our gov't is structured quite similar to that of the normal gov't: 1. we have a Chief (in this day and age his/her role is more like mayor of a town), 2. the Council (in much the same manner as the US Senate - at least this is how it works on my reserve), and they're democratically elected by the people. Funny thing is, our Chief and Council are more prone to corruption than any other municipal gov't.

Rob, if they are corrupt, get rid of them, I know this may be easier said than done but we (non-Indians) don’t have a right to interfere with it, it’s up to you guys.

 

I do sympathize with you a great deal, but if you depend on the white man you will eventually give up what little individuality you have left.