It was an issue. In discussion groups I also got yelled at for various offenses of the white settlers, and more than once had to point out that first of all, neither I nor any of mine were involved in anything of the kind around *here* and ya, *sure* there used to be signs saying no dogs or indians -- there also used to be signs saying no dogs or irish! There was a process of education that went both ways. I had never heard of Sand Creek. Some of the Native American students had never encountered respectful interest.
However inconvenient it was at the time, I do respect that teacher for making me re-do those papers. All sorts of nonsense is perpetuated in the name of "indian wisdom" and if you want to study a culture, especially at the graduate level as I was, you have to be very clear as to what you are studying and what the point of view of your authority is. There are rare exceptions. Tony Hillerman's depiction of the Native Americans of New Mexico is widely acknowledged to be both accurate and careful not to transgress angainst the culture. For those who were left wondering what exactly was wrong with Outkast's Grammy performance, for example, the Beauty Way is a sacred chant. The Navaho do not make a secret of their culture as some other peoples do, but Outkast used something sacred and neglected to notice that the Navajo do not wear buckskin, live in teepees, or use tomahawks. Imagine performing a piece based on a beautiful gospel spiritual in front of a line of grimacing dancers in exaggerated blackface. So, I think I disagree with this must-be-indian mentality in some of its forms, but I also see the need for it at time. On the one hand, it is used sometimes to silence people who seem to have something of value to say. I believe that the Bellacourt brothers pulled the race card on Ward Churchill recently, for instance. On the other, I cringe when I see a shamrock, and I imagine the reaction to "Trail's End" is kind of similar. So again, I think it is a matter of context. Several of the more important poets in Native American literature have talked about being told that they were not pure-blooded enough to call themselves Indian, and some people resent having to go get a certificate from Washington to demonstrate their identity. On the other hand, at some point you do have to bring the matter up. I'm multiple generations away from Ireland. It seems fair to me that my opinion of the Good Friday accord should matter less than that of someone who actually risks being shot at -- right? Dana On 8/8/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I encountered a similar attitude when studing African art history and > culture. I was often looked down upon as a white chick - how could I > possibly get it. This was particularly prevelant among the African > American students. Ironically, when I went to Africa with a racially > diverse group, one of the things I was asked was, "so, how come Sue is > more brown than you?" Sue (not her real name) was aghast and said, > "Because I'm African American." They laughed and said, "no you're > oyinbo." (Oyinbo literally means "skin peeled away - but it's the > general term for all foreigners.) There was no connection felt by the > Africans to the African Americans - much to the great dismay of the > African Americans on the trip. > > > On 8/7/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > it's an interesting point of view. He made me redo several papers > > because I cited non-Native writers. His reasoning: if we are talking > > about what it means to be Native American, what does a white man know? > > Since there are lots of blond blue-eyed wannabes in Santa Fe I sort of > > see his point. On the other hand, he himself was half Lebanese and > > this point of view invalidates his own father's opinion, a man who > > spent a lifetime in Laguna. > > > > I suspect that this is one of those issues where context is everything > > -- someone already familiar with the culture woud spot a tall tale > > told to an anthropologist for example. > > > > It's an area of controversy in the field, one the one hand effusive > > websites praising "Indian wisdom" of no specific origin, on the other > > a kind of political correctness that says you aren't entitled to speak > > out unless you're a government-certified indian. > > > > That's where the remark comes from. > > > > On 8/6/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 8/6/05, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > One of the big things in Native American Studies is recognizing the > > > > genuinely native american sources. > > > > > > This is an interesting comment. On the one hand, we do want to > > > understand the culture from authoritative sources because our own > > > understanding will be colored by our differing paradigms. However, > > > there's something interesting in the life of oral traditions. The > > > changes in the retelling that give them their color and character > > > based on the teller's memory and capacity to evoke the ideas they > > > remember. > > > > > > -Kevin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:168492 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
