> The intent of my post was not to criticize a specific organization.
> Rather, I wanted to warn that there exists groups that may seem fully
> supportive of Indian affairs/rights, yet these groups main concerns are
> not Indian rights. The main concerns may be something like: "save the
> planet", "fight capitalism", "fight the government", ...
>
> I think this is an important message for NativeNet readers to make sure
> they are working to preserve tribal rights, rather than unknowingly
> working against tribal rights.
And then Gary explained:
> Who is making the de-
> cision on behalf of the tribe? I know there have been many cases where
> governments have created what amount to phony native governing bodies in
> order to push through some decision that they want to foist on the native
> people involved. Is the community as a whole behind the decision? Has
> anyone in the state brought out the argument that the situation represents
> a matter of tribal sovereignty?
And I say:
Being under the duress of being "domestic dependent nations" Indians are
always subject to the "good Indian/bad Indian" dichotomy, with the
"illegitimate" representatives being the ones that the particular Europeans
disagree with. If one is truly interested in Indian self-government, you
must respect the decisions we make for ourselves, not question our right
to govern or misgovern ourselves.
One of the unfortunate side-effects of European greed is that Indians are
played one against another by competing white interests. The Woodland Cree
versus Lubicon dispute is another example, where we hear all about how the
Woodland Cree don't deserve to be recognized as Indians because they are
Metis! It may interest some to know that many Metis are full blood Indians
who were deemed not to be for many political reasons of the whites in the past.
So, they are "illegitimate" just because the whites now want to recognize
them for ulterior motives, and their brothers already recognized exclude
them because of this. It's a joke when Indian status is determined by who
whites say is Indian in the first place!
In any case, Greenpeace in Canada has in the past campaigned against
subsistence hunting, including caribou and seal. It's solution is another
mirror of the European hegemony - to replace our self-sufficiency with
welfare and European living which doesn't suit our physiology.
I strongly agree with Danny. There is a romanticized, sanitized version
of the Indian that those raised on Bambi movies have developed, that
is completely unrealistic of ourselves or our aspirations.
I also agree partially with the "environmentalist" who claimed that
the Europeanized society has separated killing from eating meat. That
is precisely why hunting is so important, that one realizes
exactly how one fits into the natural scheme of things and appreciates
what it rests on. One with a balanced view is not likely to exploit
or become greedy. However, I suspect that there are very, very few who
would approve of hunting on PeaceNet, as opposed to Indians on NativeNet,
lending credence to Danny's observations of differing goals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peshewegunzh
peshe%mamia.UUCP@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
mthvax.cs.miami.edu!mamia.UUCP!peshe
peshe@mamia.UUCP
mthvax!mamia!peshe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~