Comments

1. Rob Schmidt wrote:

   Native Americans have been fighting for change since the 1490s. But I agree that blacks have been the most significant minority “issue” in recent decades. That is, since the Reconstruction era and the end of the Indian Wars.

   I also agree that the civil rights movement and the so-called black agenda help everyone (duh). That includes other minorities and even white people, who benefit from multiculturalism whether they realize it or not. A rising tide of equal rights and opportunities lifts everyone, or something like that.

   It’s a bit perplexing that racial controversies are still somewhat compartmentalized. To some degree, it seems blacks care about the Obama chimp cartoon, Asians about “ching chong” jokes, Latinos about immigration, Natives about Indian mascots, and gays about Proposition 8. We should all be fighting these battles together because success helps everyone.

   Needless to say, Racialicious readers are already doing this. The point is that everyone else should be like us.

   Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 12:48 pm ¶

2. Jess wrote:

   @Rob —
   I’m curious, have you ever read Vine Deloria’s treatment of why Native interests and Black interests aren’t going to be the same? (The Essay was titled “The Red and The Black.”

   It’s a tad dated now (I think it was written in 1965 or thereabouts) but it is salient that for Native people, the struggle would not (by definition. almost) be for equality within the society. but to prevent colonization by that society.

   Black people in that sense (and I am paraphrasing DeLoria here) are colonists as well, even though they weren’t put in that position voluntarily.

   Obviously (I hope) I don’t think the lines are cut and dried all the time and everywhere, as the history of Oklahoma (for instance) illustrates. But for the most part, you are going to end up with very different sets of interests and goals viz. American government, society and culture.

   That said, it doesn’t mean there are no connections common interests or parallels and it doesn’t mean that the struggle for the rights of any group can’t be extended to others. (This is why I think DeLoria’s essay was a bit dated these days, as it predates the Chicano movement a bit and doesn’t address the issue that being mestizo/Latin@ — whatever term you want to use — often means being part Native by definition. I have no idea where DeLoria stood on this kind of stuff at that time, if you know by all means tell me).

   And I agree wholeheartedly that the struggle for the one group can help everyone.

   There’s an old labor slogan you might like: “An injury to one is an injury to all.” That was from the old IWW, among others. But the issue then was the same — radical unions took the position that workers’ rights meant nothing without assuring equal rights for people of all backgrounds. At the time the focus was on African Americans and Irish people — the IWW was quite different from other unions in this respect.

   Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 1:43 pm ¶

3. Fatemeh wrote:

   Rob said: “We should all be fighting these battles together because success helps everyone. Needless to say, Racialicious readers are already doing this. The point is that everyone else should be like us.”

   Co-sign!

   Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 2:54 pm ¶

4. Daniel wrote:

   This may sound really silly and it might not applied to other places, but the idea of being in a cohesive society is in a strange way, a bit hard for a lot of Americans…not just because of our “diversity”, short history or geography, but because the mainstream attitude of how detached we are from one another. The space bubble is really a lot larger than many communities around the world. Not quite sure if it’s this value of individualism or a combination of other factors.

   In regards to race, most of the time I guess, it’s related to xenophobia (which correlates with other issues) in many other countries, but in the US, there is such a lingering belief of using superficial features to label people, to a point where it becomes almost “caste” like. As if it’s part of your soul, karma, etc. Sorry for using those words but for now I don’t know how to describe it and the effects on people.

   Aside from the constant immigration from other countries, the different races, as defined by most Americans today, have been living within visible distance from one another on this land for at least 300+years. Even if the individuals or families may not have had that long enough histor/experiences to have a tolerant-open (or accepting) mentality, surely the mainstream culture and atttitude would be by now. At the very least, people can address one another without using “dehumanizing” terms/tones, which unfortuantely still plagues a lot of public conversations.

   Posted 02 Mar 2009 at 5:36 pm ¶

5. BlackIvy wrote:

   @Jess

   Im not sure what you mean about blacks as colonizers. Do you mean that because we (were forced) to occupy land that by our presence we claimed land that didn’t belong to us? I find it hard to accept the notion of colonization by a group of people who didn’t have legal land rights.

   Also, see controversy surrounding Native American (Cherokee) exclusion of blacks held as slaves after formation of Cherokee nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Indians

   No one’s hands are clean.

   Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 12:48 am ¶

6. Kea wrote:

   YOu guys might want to take a look at Andy Smith’s article “Heteropatriachy and the 3 pillars of white supremacy ” in a book called The Color of Violence: The INCITE! Anthology.

   The basic premise is that white supremacy depends on using different tactics and promoting different logics that always isolate groups for purposes that support continued white domination. It’s a short read, very clear, and very good. It’s a good place to start talking about this without running into the “Yeah, but you guys screwed us over too” stuff, because that’s sorta how we end up supporting the white supremacy we’re talking about.

   Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 1:08 am ¶

7. Jess wrote:

   @BlackIvy– the issue there is that from a Native perspective (from DeLoria) it didn’t matter that black people were brought as slaves, bringing slaves was part of the colonization process and as such once black people were free to buy land (during and after reconstruction) they became part of that same force of displacement. To put it another way, if my land is getting taken away to build a plantation, I don’t much care that the workers on it are slaves. brought in from somewhere, the effect on me is the same.

   I pointed out that the line isn’t a bright one. A Cherokee might look at it differently (DeLoria was looking at it, IIRC, from the perspective of a plains nation). Remember, black soldiers spearheaded many of the campaigns in the West, especially against the Apaches and peoples of the southwest. At the same time, in the first half of the 19th century many black slaves escaped south into Florida (which you remember was Spanish territory until 1820), and mixed with the native population — and would later be known as Seminoles.

   As importantly, for black people, because they are essentially Americans (though again, they were broght here involuntarily) an important goal was to build a life in the US as equal citizens — that’s what the whole civil rights movement takes as a premise.

   For Native people, the whole premise is different — there was a lot of protest over making Native people citizens in 1924 (though some thought it was the only way to deal with the situation by that time existed).

   For a Native American, it isn’t that the US s your country that you want to be a part of, it’s that your country was taken away from you by a conqueror. I mean. when the Germans occupied France the French were not interested in being German citizens — even equal German citizens. Even the Cherokees in Oklahoma weren’t gung-ho about being part of the United States, though their situation was rather more complicated.

   But hey, this is all a quick-and-dirty analysis– I’m leaving out a lot — but the point is that these things are complicated.

   Anyhow, none of that precludes common causes or alliances, but it’s to note that there’s a reason that there’s no “natural” alliances between peoples on different ends of the colonization process. Being non-white doesn’t automatically make all your interests and goals the same as mine. And really, why should it? People have different histories.

   That’s why building alliances is important to begin with, right? And why it’s hard work. Otherwise everybody would just “get it” from day one.

   Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 9:03 am ¶

8. Travis Hedge Coke wrote:

   So, by “get in line” do you mean get to the back of the bus?

   As a person of mixed race I just don’t have the patience for this sort of divisiveness and I don’t see what it nets us, positively and progressively, that cooperation and a moral essentialism won’t get us quicker and easier.

   As a Native American, I promise I won’t pull any “we were here first” so long as nobody else tells me to “get in line” for essential human equality, fair? Consider that my public service.

   Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 1:28 pm ¶

9. HH wrote:

   I want to reiterate the frustration of the words of the quoted author above: it is sad that we need to employ ‘diversity officers’.
   I work in a school where we have a committed and competent Director of Diversity, and I think he does a great job making others aware of injustices throughout the school and society at large. What a shame that we can’t get there on our own.

   Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 3:41 pm ¶

10. A.A. wrote:

    New Federal Lawsuit – Cherokee Nation v. Nash

    The Cherokee Nation has initiated a new lawsuit against a few freedmen individuals and the Secretary of Interior seeking a federal ruling on the citizenship question. The case is styled Cherokee Nation v. Nash (and others) and here’s the complaint that was filed in the Northern District. To summarize, the Cherokee Nation argues that the freedmen have no continuing federal right to tribal citizenship because the freedmen provisions of the Treaty of 1866 were abrogated by Congress when it passed the Five Tribes Act in 1906.

    You may recognize the Defendant Nash as being the lead Plaintiff in the class action freedmen lawsuit that is currently pending in the Cherokee Nation judiciary. In Nash v. Cherokee Nation, the freedmen have filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the 1866 Treaty. To summarize, the freedmen argue that the freedmen provisions of the Treaty of 1866 are still binding federal/tribal law.

    You may also recall that there is another pending federal lawsuit on this issue in the DC district court. In that case, a group of freedmen initiated a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior and did not name the Cherokee Nation as a defendant. The Cherokee Nation was allowed to intervene in the lawsuit and the case was dismissed as against the Cherokee Nation government on sovereign immunity grounds. The case is, however proceeding on the merits, as against the Principal Chief and other tribal officers on the grounds that they are acting outside of their authority in violation of federal law, ie. the 1866 Treaty.

    These three cases proceed simultaneously for now.

    Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 5:21 pm ¶

11. A.A. wrote:

    http://www.cherokee.org/

    also colonization of Liberia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society

    Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 5:25 pm ¶

12. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Jess, I posted a long response to your comments in “Separate Nations for Blacks, Indians?” (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2009/03/separate-nations-for-blacks-indians.html). The short version is that yes, I read Deloria’s piece, but no, I don’t agree with it. Indians have some unique issues but also many common issues with other minorities.

    Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 9:13 pm ¶

13. Jess wrote:

    @Rob–

    I had honestly forgotten about DeLoria’s issue with black separatism. In that sense I’d agree with you. That’s one reason I said the thing was a bit dated.

    Also, the sovereignty issue to me makes the Native struggle a bit mote akin to the national liberation struggles of colonized people all over the world. I do think you gloss over a tad the reasons that Native people have been pushing sovereignty in many different ways rather than just letting it slide — I mean, think of the Salamanca (NY) dispute back in ‘92. The Senecas could have ust said “well, we’re part of the US now” and let it go. They didn’t and insisted on their land rights as outlined by treaty.

    You are correct tho that the situation for Native people — at least in terms of urbanization and participation in the wider culture — is a bit different now. But I’d argue that that makes recognizing those treaties and sovereignties even more important.

    And none of that negates the need for common cause between minority groups, see the IWW quote. I’d say I disagree with DeLoria on that point in particular.

    Posted 03 Mar 2009 at 10:18 pm ¶

14. kirsten meyer wrote:

    @Jess & Rob-

    Jess you are right, Rob does “tend to gloss over the reasons that Native people have been pushing sovereignty,” and in fact in his first post completely overlooked the fact that although Natives may see some benefit from the civil rights movement generally in larger society, overall our main priorities and interests are maintaining our rights as sovereign nations and fighting the continuing colonization of our lands and people here in the U.S.- a reality that sharply differentiates us from any other group now in the U.S. I’m not surprised that Rob missed this key distinction- although well-intentioned, and although he writes often about “Native issues”, he is not himself Native, and frankly is often out of sync with “the Native community.”

    Of course I am all for alliance-building, holding hands, sharing stories, and cooperation; however, one of the dangers I often see is that our concerns as Indigenous people fall to the wayside in coalitions becuase we don’t have the numbers and representation of other groups, and it IS very easy for these other groups to A) presume that civil rights is the primary goal for all and of most benefit to all; that B) the African-American community and their experience represents an effective model of all oppression in the U.S., and their goals and leadership represent the most viable path to equality and end of oppression for all people of color in the U.S.; and C) to overlook, dismiss, and/or invalidate our experiences and concerns as Native people because either our numbers are too small, or becuase we don’t meet other peoples’ stereotypical definitions of “authenticity”.

    I think its accurate that most Native people have a vested interest in civil rights, however, if you look at most Native peoples’ list of priorities, civil rights and the struggle for equality within U.S. society is way down on the list, beneath issues within our respective nations, and beneath issues between our nations and the U.S. government. As “people of color” we can and should benefit from and fight for civil rights and equality in general….BUT unlike other “people of color” in the U.S., we have a whole SLEW of other legislation, policies, and even governmental agencies that apply specifically and only to us, by virtue of our status as indigenous people and our nation-to-nation relationships with the U.S. government through treaties. While its true in some cases these unique relationships translate to something positive for us, in general what it also means is more complications, more potential ways for us to be screwed, and more legal fights we have be waging on various fronts simultaneously (which doesn’t leave a whole lot of energy for most of us to devote to the larger “civil rights” struggle). And much of what is going on in “Indian Country” is ENTIRELY off the radar for most other communities of color in the U.S., no matter how “diversity-minded” they are- they just aren’t exposed to what’s going on. And truthfully most people don’t go out of their way to expose themselves. Because we’re all busy and our first priority tends to be what hits closest to home.

    One other thing I’d like to say is that in particular I have seen a lot of negativity between segments of the African-American community and segments of the Native American community. I see a lot of things said from both directions in many venues that I think reflect a poor understanding of each other, and often of history. The truth about slavery in the Americas- the slavery of Natives AND the slavery of Africans- and the relationships between Native people and Africans is extremely complicated, varied from tribe to tribe and across time and space. It seems to me that often people want to simplify the relationship and just easily conclude that one or the other or both was/is simply “racist,” thus proving that one or the other is/was “more oppressed/victimized”- as if they give out a trophy for that. I think its very unfortunate, and I look forward to a day where we can hopefully all be better educated and also more sensitive to each other.

    One thing I must say is that the situation with the Cherokee freedman is not clear-cut, nor is it something easily understood in a few minutes. There is a lot of legal history there. I could write a LOT about that situation. But its important to note that the Cherokee nation did not throw out all “Black” people, and to say this is simply an issue of racism is over-simplifying the history and legal situation. I really feel that the issue has been misrepresented by some of the freedmen to the larger African-American community, who have enthusiastically taken up the cause with the best of intentions based on a few bits of facts, but who may remain ill-informed of the whole history and context of the situation. for starters, there is a bunch of information posted at the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma’s website: http://freedmen.cherokee.org/

    Love this thread, lots of good thoughts. Peace.

    Posted 17 Mar 2009 at 1:25 am ¶