Gary,
in response to your posting and to Jim Benenson's posting,
1. Jim states,
> I joined this list about a month ago because I believed it to be a forum
> about Native Americans, a subject I have recently become interested in.
Personally, I didn't think this network was "about" Native Americans, a
subject, so much as it is "for" them, a group of people. I am assuming
that since it is a public discussion, that they don't object white
people listening in and learning from the discussion, and even exchange
some ideas, as long as the white people don't overshadow and shout them
out, but I assumed the main purpose was a forum where Indians can share
and consult and argue without being shut out or overshadowed by white
voices. I've been told that this can be a problem at times,
white people often tend to dominate discussions with minorities (as men
often tend to dominate discussions with women, there are studies that
give evidence that this is the case), and there needs to be places
where this is not allowed to happen.
[ As I wrote in a personal response to Susan: "Well, it's really about
both, but it tends to be more about Native Americans, just by virtue of
the fact that most members of the list are non-Native. I would like to
set up a separate list specifically for Native people and their various
community agencies, schools, news organizations, etc., but that pro-
ject will take a while to engineer, and I suspect some funding will be
neccessary, since in many cases it will be required to procure and
install computer equipment and/or communications software, and to
provide training in its use..." --Gary ]
2. I agree that the focus of the message, at least what you shared, is
unclear.
3. About censorship,
You say,
> I very rarely decline to relay an article, but have done so a couple of
> times when I feel that a particular article makes an unfair attack, or
> violates some common norm of "good taste" or when I feel that a given
> discussion has really run its course and we're just "going 'round in
> circles."
In a sense, the job of a moderator is to censor, to keep the discussion
from going crazy, to keep "flames" from shutting out and overwhelming
the more productive conversations, to keep irrelevant arguments/
discussions from overloading people. Indeed, I've signed off many
lists for those very reasons, it seems the quality of the list
goes down for lack of someone with the good sense or ability to
"censor out" that kind of garbage. As far as the job you do, I think you
do an exemplary job of providing an outlet for people, whether their
comments agree with your opinions or not, and using your censorship
to prevent functional problems instead of using it to control the
direction of the conversation. On one of the other lists I'm on,
when I complained about the direction the conversation was taking,
some of the other members commented that the only alternative was
the evil of censorship, (and I've seen it so referred to on other
lists also), and I've pretty much decided that a sensitive job, such
as the one you are doing, is much preferable. I generally get more out
of this type of list than the ones that allow an unrestricted free-for-
all, even to the point of an extremely absurd, extensive conversation
about traveling with a cat on a list about education.
4) You say,
> I see the task of a moderator for this kind of list to involve
> developing and maintaining some sense of what most people want, as is
> conveyed in comments they make to me privately or in the context
> of their articles.
Should a list such as this be focused on what "most people" on it want,
or should it be geared towards the wants of the people it was
originally intended for? Was it originally intended for Indians, white
people who want to know all about Indians, or both? If a large number
of white people suddenly decide to join the list, would that change
how you moderate it? Should it? If the wants of most people happen
to match up with the wants of the people it is intended for, this isn't
a problem, but what if they don't?
5) As to your feelings about the discussions lately,
> For my own part, I tend to think that the discussion we've been having
> lately is valuable and important, in that it helps us to look at the
> element of tension between the traditional methods of academic inquiry
> and the feelings of at least some contemporary indigenous people, and it
> permits us to get a better understanding of the various forms of possible
> abuse of popular interest in Native peoples and cultures.
For me, it has done that and more. I am starting to understand why
many of the things discussed bother people, and what some of the
underlying issues are. For example, the first discussion I heard
about using Indians as mascots, such as at the University of Illinois,
(I lived in Champaign a few years ago), I thought was pretty silly. When
I first heard about the idea of exploiting native spirituality, I wondered
first of all, how one could sell another person's spirituality, and
2nd of all, why the person being imitated would have any problem with
it, I mean, a person's relationship with God or nature or whatever
is between that person and God, doesn't really involve anyone else
imitating them. However, listening to these conversations gives
me a deeper understanding of the issues involved, shows how they relate
to larger attitudes, and I do think, as you state in your next posting,
that this kind of change in attitude, on a wider level, does have
the potential to change the policies that create and sustain the
conditions of material hardship.
6) Promoting dialogue--
You noted, also in your next posting, that this network has the
potential to promote dialogue between Indians and the non-Indian
public. I hadn't included this in my original assessment of the
purpose of this list, but maybe this is a major purpose. I certainly
do see this happening, both ways I think. A sensitive moderation, as
I believe you are doing, will allow this to continue.
7) You state,
> I can see how someone could claim that focusing attention on these
> matters [spirituality, mascots, anthropoligists] could stimulate in
> the minds of the non-Indian public a certain set of attitudes or
> opinions or prejudices about Indian people, however.
No, as I stated earlier, I think these conversations have stimulated
understanding, not prejudices. It also showed the variations and
differences of opinions and attitudes in the Indian community,
which is rather antithetical to the formation of prejudices, which
lump togather people, not appreciate their diversity and differences.
The conversations show some anger, some patience, some understanding.
Even the pointed, angry comments of Peshewegunzh, who makes many
of the most angry comments on the list, are generally well backed up
and not totally anti- everything western, and I have a sense are very
rational (even while being somewhat poetic and beautifully said).
8) You mentioned the relative importance of material and idealogical
issues. I agree (if I understand you right), that both are equally
important. For myself, I am concerned with my physical, emotional,
social, and spiritual health. Either without the others would leave
me a very imcomplete person. It may be that the discussion is
imbalanced in favor of one. The postings of material issues
often do seem to be more in the form of news releases and not
discussion. I find myself wondering what some of the other issues
are that Peshewegunzh mentions that are not discussed. Is this
because people just don't know what to say about these other
issues, or that they don't care, as Peshewegunzh seems to feel? Or is
the general feeling that these belong on another list, that does not
at present exist? (I hope I didn't spell his name too badly, I don't
have it in front of me. I wonder how he feels about people calling
him Peshe, is that a common nickname for Peshewegunzh? I mean, I think
it presumptuous and really hate it when people who don't know me invent
nicknames or even to use certain common ones like "Susie" instead of
referring to me by my given name. Although, Peshe is easier to spell.)
9) On Jim's statement
that his comments deserve posting as they are, well I'm not sure I
agree. In some ways, I figure I'm depending on you to let me
know if I'm being very out of line or insensitive in my mailings,
and would not have felt terribly offended if you had sent any of them
back to me, only would like your help in understanding why. I'm not
going to pretend I know all about how to be sensitive, with my
racist, very self-centered upbringing, and I really do not want to
offend or to discourage other discussion by my comments.
Susan Witt
Knox College
<switt@knox.bitnet>