Not Yet Ready to Face the Past in the Present

How many Americans have heard of Dahlonega, Georgia? How many know that it was the site of the first large scale gold-rush in the United States? How many people know that in order to get access to that gold, forced removal of several indigenous tribes became the policy of the United States government? How many people know about the horrible conditions of t forced removal that resulted in the deaths of women, children, and the elderly from starvation and disease? Without knowing this, how is it that mainstream America has enough knowledge about indigenous peoples and the Cherokee peoples to offer any comment as to whether or not Elizabeth Warren is “an Indian”?

As I have blogged about in prior posts, the controversy kicked up in the mainstream American press about whether or not Elizabeth Warren is or is not an “Indian” has revealed several unpleasant realities about American society. It has revealed the deeply racist views that are held in mainstream America towards indigenous peoples. More than that, it has revealed that it is also apparently acceptable and even seen as humorous and good jolly fun to express those racist views—good journalism even. And it also reveals the deep ignorance and apathy that mainstream Americans have about the indigenous peoples in their midst, both past and present. But the Elizabeth Warren situation with its racist and disrespectful depictions of indigenous peoples is hardly an isolated incident in modern America.


A government that has created secondary status for indigenous groups to which it does not grant federal recognition leaves those groups with little recourse within the United States. These groups have rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But what good do those do with a government that is deeply unresponsive to these people? Take the failure of the US Forestry Service to respond to the requests of the Winnemem Wintu peoples to close a part of a river so that their coming-of-age ceremonies can be conducted without drunken white people disrupting the ceremonies by, among other things, women flashing their naked breasts and mocking the ceremony? (see story and video of disturbance at this link )
For mainstream America to get to grips with what it means to be indigenous, who is indigenous and how things got to be the way they are in the present day means confronting a past that has been largely airbrushed from the historical memory of mainstream America. It means confronting and acknowledging the harms done by government policies of assimilation ( there is a video clip at this link that brings tears to my eyes—this is the living face of devastation that was wrought by government policies determined to make indigenous peoples disappear). But confronting and acknowledging that is a step that mainstream America hardly seems ready to take—it is not yet ready to face the legacy of the past that reverberates in the present.

"It is not getting any brighter..." Part 3

The mainstream press continues to be filled with racist cultural stereotypes about indigenous peoples in the discussion over Elizabeth Warren. I wonder, why is it OK to proliferate these sorts of deeply offensive remarks about indigenous peoples? The outcry that to me should be had is not about whether Elizabeth Warren is or is not indigenous, but why in this day and age anyone--including the press- thinks it is OK to engage in such racist and degrading commentary about indigenous peoples? As I have posted earlier, I find these remarks disturbing and revealing as to the true extent of racism and prejudice that American society harbours towards indigenous peoples.

A few more samplings:

Headline "Elizabeth Warren Won't Get Peace Pipe
"While U.S. Sen. Scott Brown nailed a difficult half-court shot at a Hyannis youth center, Elizabeth “Dances with Deception” Warren has been juggling a political football — and fumbling badly. "

Headline "Sacaja-Whiner: Elizabeth Warren and the Oppression Olympics"
"Elizabeth Warren is the Harvard law professor running for Senate in Massachusetts as a Democratic populist-progressive champion. But don't call her "Elizabeth Warren." Call her "Pinocchio-hontas," "Chief Full-of-Lies," "Running Joke" or "Sacaja-whiner.""

What the uproar about Elizabeth Warren has done is put into plain view the insidious racism that is not only part of, but apparently found to be humourous and acceptable, American society towards indigenous peoples.

"Its not getting any brighter out there..." Part 2

Mother Jones comments on the mainstream press content on the Elizabeth Warren is she or isn't she an Indian controversy and highlights this gem from the Boston Herald:

"How long before wise guys in feathered headdresses start dancing around parking lots at your events? Somebody told me yesterday your campaign needs to lie low and “circle the wagons.” Whoops. That same someone quickly realized it was the pioneers who circled the wagons when your Cherokee ancestors were blazing across the prairie on the warpath"

Racist cultural stereotypes? Deep ignorance about the history of the Cherokee peoples? Never heard of "The Five Civilized Tribes" or of Sequoyah?

Dear Reader, I leave you to draw your own conclusion as to whether it is "getting any brighter out there".

What Do We Choose to See?

Sometimes there are events that start you thinking. Events that stay on your mind, greet you first thing in the morning, linger in the fragments of dreams that dissipate as you wake, fade only as you fall asleep. Racism in the United States—highlighted in the events around the killing of Trayvon Martin—jar and disturb. Even when viewed from across the ocean. Especially when viewed from across the ocean, because somehow my own gaze is sharper and clearer when I am not in the middle of a society that is deeply racist and just as feverently denies it. Electing Barack Obama as President did not wave a wand over the racial ills in American society and make them disappear. He remains the exception, not the rule. Racism has not gone away.

I am white. I only get glimpses of what it is like to live as a person who is not white in contemporary American society. My god-mother (yes, African-American) was a founding member of the National Association for Black Social Workers. My god-father has recounted how a desegregation of southern universities in the United States meant that his state opted to pay for his education in another state, at another university, rather than have him attend their institution.

I remember attending a conference in California with an African-American colleague. She was looking about with a wide-eyed gaze, a bright smile on her face, the look of someone who has just discovered something amazing and wonderful. She tried to explain to me: to look around me. How many people were white? How many were black? For the first time in her life, she said, in a public place, there were people of colour in great number, and she felt this immense relief, that she could relax, that she did not have to go about girded and braced against the ill-will and even outright hatred she faced as a matter of course in her daily life as a person of colour. I probably would not understand, she said, but she would do her best to let me see the world through her eyes. I did my best to understand and felt and feel profoundly grateful that she took tremendous pains to show me into the world of a person not white in America.

Shani King has written about the racism that permeates American society in the context of inter-country adoption of children. He identifies five narratives that ribbon their way through the legal discourse on intercountry adoption, including narratives of rescue and humanitarian motives. He has developed a concept, “monohumanism” where “MonoHumanism is fundamentally the notion of American culture as a superior one in comparison with all non-American peoples and cultures...What MonoHumanism represents, more specifically, is the notion that the United States has substituted its own view of all non-American peoples or cultures for positive knowledge of them, facilitating the creation of the Western identity of self as the normative center. The narrative of identity that accompanies MonoHumanism subscribes both universality and superiority to Western knowledge and discourse, which effectively results in the exclusion and displacement of the knowledge and dis-course of historically oppressed peoples.” He argues for the process of “dismantle[ing] the concept of Monohumanism...”

It strikes me that much of his critique of the discourses of intercountry adoption might easily be applied to the discourse of indigenous rights. How much of that discourse is inclusive—albeit unstated—of the ideas that run through Monohumanism? How consciously do writers about indigenous rights and issues pay attention to the pratfalls of a monohumanistic (or however this concept might be labelled) standpoint that might run through their ideas and writing?

Until recently, no one spoke very openly about racism in America. Now perhaps the society is confronting this in a move long over-due. It is an easy subject to seek to avoid because it is uncomfortable and disturbing. But as my African-American friend told me, I had the option to close my eyes to it. She never did.

Video "Don't Need Saving: Aboriginal Women and Access to Justice"

This is a video which must be watched. It is called "Don't Need Saving: Aboriginal Women and Access to Justice". It raises many thought-provoking issues about the lives of Aboriginal women in Canada. It provides an indigenous point of view and voice on what no doubt are issues that stir up controversy-- but need to be confronted nevertheless.

The issues raised are not unique to Canada. A report from Amnesty International "Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence" details the endemic problems in the United States on issues of sexual violence and system response to Indigenous women.