When we were talking about the use of American Indian names and symbols
and representations (or carictures) of acts based on the practices of
Indian societies, several people expressed the opinion that there are
more important concerns that should be capturing the attention of those
who care about supporting the struggles of Indian people, and that their
energies are better spent protesting treaty violations and expropriations
of lands and more overt examples of discrimination based on race than
are represented by what takes place at sporting events. We have also
talked about what some consider to be the marketing of Indian spiritu-
ality in insensitive ways by people without a solid claim to even being
Indian, and whether it is ever legitimate for anyone (Indian or non-
Indian) to do so. Now we have before us an article I included yesterday
in one of my own ("complaint about recent dialogue," 8 February 1992)
seemingly implying an opinion that the discussion we've been having con-
cerning whether the time and energy spent in examining such questions
might not be better spent in more practical pursuits which stand to do
more for Indian people, and that, in fact, there is something basic about
the whole enterprise of supporting what it means to be Indian (referred
to in that article as "the red road") that makes trivial or unimportant
the consideration of what the author of that article appears to find of
lesser importance, if not a positive distraction from what is of real and
substantial value in promoting a renewal of American Indian society.
I don't presume to know or be able to state what is Indian and what is
not. Yes, I'm sure I'm steeped in non-Indian Western reductionistic and
mechanistic logic, and that this fact serves as an obstacle to my ever
being able to understand certain basic facts - but there's probably
nothing I can do about my situation in the short term. However, from
my own perspective, biased though it may be, it appears to me that there
is an unnecessary dualism being posited and actually recommended as a
means to deal with the central problems of American/Canadian Indian
people.
Quite honestly, I fail to see why having concerns about the use/abuse
of certain symbols at sporting events or who has a legitimate claim to
refer to him/herself as "Indian" or how and when and whether Indian
spirituality can or should be offered to non-Indians, and under what
conditions, is in any way in basic conflict with concerns about land
rights or social problems or educational opportunities or any of the
other myriad "practical" issues we might want to consider. I can see
how someone could claim that focussing attention on these matters could
stimulate in the minds of the larger non-Indian public a certain set of
attitudes or opinions or prejudices about Indian people, however. I
suggest that perhaps we might want to discuss this question as a discrete
subject, independent of any of the areas in which it has come up, but
using those matters as examples.
With regard to this question, my own feeling tends to be that there may
be a real opportunity for promoting dialogue among Indians and the non-
Indian public in such subjects. As to the question of which kind of
issue is "more important," I find it very difficult to say - nor is it
really for me as a non-Indian *to* say. If it were my own culture being
endangered by a misuse of its symbols or a misrepresentation by those
unqualified to speak on its behalf or its basic spiritual understandings
being sold as commodities, I suspect I would consider these to be import-
ant enough matters to justify a desire to have them aired in a public
enough forum to draw attention to the feelings about them by myself and
others who shared those sentiments. In fact, I might see such an airing
as in some way strongly related to an overall change in attitude which
might have the potential to eventually change the policies which create
and sustain the conditions of material hardship which would also trouble
me and my people.
Looking at recent American history with respect to the minority of black
citizens, whose example is often cited (whether or not such citation is
entirely valid or meaningful as applied to the case of American Indians),
we find that civil rights being recognized and granted and embodied in
law and defended by our social institutions has come only after a change
in attitudes was produced which supported the practical material changes.
We see that a change in language and a change in what images were consi-
dered legitimate in media portrayals was an important part of providing
the beginnings of material changes. It's not simply a matter of the
attitude shifts being the soil out of which grows the substantial organ-
ism of social change, but it seems to be an essential part of the process.
My point, if I have one, is that different people have a right to work
on different aspects of what they consider the problem to be, without
needing to fear that the work they are doing is somehow jeopardizing the
results obtained by others working on other aspects, and that no problem
that one might choose to work on can be considered too insignificant to
be a valid object for one's energies. I'm sure a case can be made for
the opposite point of view. I would like to have an opportunity to
examine that case and to evaluate its claims with respect to the various
matters we've considered recently, such as those I've mentioned above.
If I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the arguments advanced by
proponents of various points of view which differ from that I've tried
to state here, I offer my sincere apologies, and invite them to restate
their opinions and become part of an ongoing debate on the subject.
Gary
--
Gary S. Trujillo gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst