I was not questioning whether or not someone should attend the protest. If I
were in the position to do so, I also would attend. However, that is beside
the point in terms of what I was trying to get across. I was not questioning
the goals of Colorado AIM, I was questioning the tactics they were using to
try and solicit support for the demonstration. I'm afraid I did not adequately
make this clear in my original post.
On the question of tactics, it is generally accepted among those who study
social movements for a living, that movements that tend to be successful find
ways to neutralize their opposition. As such, one tactic that is often used is
to try and mobilize the support of "ally" organizations. If the intent of the
original post was to call on allied support only from native organizations
(in other words, if it was not intended for non-Native audiences other than
those such as the readership of this group), then the type of appeals
expressed in the post would probably be successful. However, if this appeal
was meant to go out to a larger audience of support, then I raise the
questions noted in my original post. I think Xeno and I are in agreement
about the need to educate all peoples about the atrocities brought about to
native populations because of European contact. Slavery, the introduction of
diseases, and outright genocidal policies were indeed part of this pattern,
as was the theft of lands "owned" by Native peoples and a host of other ills.
However, I question how effective we (Native and non-Native) can be in that
process if we immediately antagonize those who we are trying to reach.
Peshe (forgive me, I can't remember how to spell the rest of his name) has
noted on numerous occassions the need for Native organizations to insulate
themselves from the goals of groups who may have quite different agendas.
I quite agree with this, it is important to make sure that the goals of
Native groups are not subsumed in some larger "political" or "social"
movement, no matter how well-intended. However, that does not mean that
you don't have to network out to other organizations for support. You can,
of course, opt for an "isolationist" position. I just feel that this would
not be very effective as I'm not sure how much pressure Native Americans can
bring on the U.S. government (again to use the example I know best) without
soliciting the active support of non-Native peoples. I guess this is
probably the main point I was trying to raise in my original reply.
I believe that all humans have the capacity for "goodness," although certainly
not all people achieve it. We're probably never going to change the avid
racists in society. However, we may be able to reach out to others to try and
bring about change. I simply feel that if we antagonize this potential group
of supporters, that we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
I hope this post clears up some of the points made in my original reply. In
particular, I hope that Xeno finds it possible to hold a better conception
of me than the one he has already expressed. While I may indeed be ignorant,
I seriously doubt it Xeno knows me well enough to make that type of
judgement. I hope to rectify that. Then he'll have a basis for labelling
me ignorant. :-)
Respectfully,
Scott D. Camp, q8n@psuvm.psu.edu
>Original-Sender: xeno@austen.u.washington.edu (Xeno Whitenack)
>> I certainly agree that Columbus Day should be a multicultural celebration
>> of those we currently find living in the Americas. However, at the risk of
>> being severely toasted, isn't this call for protest somewhat self-defeating?
>> I mean, how many non-Native Americans do you (I'm asking for thoughts from
>> the "you" of the collective net) think are going to be attracted with the
>> type of rhetoric evidenced in the Colorado AIM call for protest? Do you
>> think that protests ONLY from Native Americans will be sufficient to begin
>> the process of (for lack of better words) trying to heal previous, and
>> grievous wrongs? I don't. It goes against how I perceive the U.S.
>> government, for one, to work.
>I would go to such a demonstration, and I think any non-racist who knew about
>the atrocities of Columbus and wasn't involved in something even more pressing
>would go out of her/his way to go. I don't think you should feel severely
>toasted, but rather severely ignorant. Not only was Columbus responsible for
>initiating the genocide of the very group of natives that at first helped him,
>but he was sponsored by the heads of the recently religious pure Spain,
>imfamous for its repression against and expulsion of its Moors and its Jews.
>Does the word "inquisition" ring a bell? Exploration and discovery are lofty
>terms that in our convoluded traditions essentially represent the not-so-lofty
>facts that what we were really doing is engaging in conquering, genocidal
>imperialism to the greatest extent allowed by law and custom. That is what
>the U.S. government and many of its citizens are still doing, even explicitly.