Jack asks some good questions, in his response to Ted.
Tough ones to answer, one that should be answered.
He also asks how is the "Indian business deal" different from
that between the guys buying and selling, say, campaign materials, or
other crafts items.
Part of the problem I've been wondering about, in Literary
Criticism, say, is why the emphasis on the "Native American" writer.
Part of the appreciation for the earlier writers was for the attempts of
the writers to highlight the humanity of members of tribal life. That's
as it should be, given we are all in the earth-boat together. So the
current trend to harken to tribal ways more in tune with the survival of
the earth-boat should be appreciated, too. But I think it's a little
weird to succomb to the cachet available by identifying the source as
"Native American."
I mean, we like to buy the crafts items from the real
craftsperson, so that example is less clear, but who would consider or
want to consider buying the campaign materials for Democrats, from "a
*real* Democrat"?
I don't know. Not very clear. It's just weird to be able to
market by saying the source is a real Indian, when it's illegal,
basically. We can't say stuff is made by a real black.
Hmm. I need to go for coffee.
Karen
io20905@maine.maine.edu