| I have just viewd the video, _Broken Rainbow_ about the Navajo Hopi land
| dispute. While a pretty good overview in 70 minutes, it was made in 1985.
|
| My question to native-l & natchat colleagues is this: Is there any
| relatively succinct summary (video or txt) of what has happened since.
|
| We get article updating quite often, but I am looking for a summary. I
| plan to use this in an undergraduate class, and students will ask what has
| happened since then?
HELLO Tom:
_Broken Rainbow_ remains, for me, one of the best documentary films I've
seen. The film was made by two women who won the Academy Awards in 1986,
and they were nominated again in 1987 for another film that also featured
women: about the grandmothers of Argentina who protested and demonstrated
and opened the possibilities of discovering their grandchildren who were
missing (because their parents were arrested and incarcerated during the
terrible years of the military government). The second film has a Spanish
title that says "Never Again".
The film has had several reactions. I like it so much that I have my own
copy. I first saw it in Vermont in the late spring of 1986 with some 300
people, and a huge colllection was taken after the showing. People felt
angry, sad, and most felt empowered by the action of the women at the end of
the film. Except for the early history narrated by Martin Sheen (and
several other voices donated for the film), the other interviews were of
women except for two scenes: the one of the old man who could not settle in
to the new relocation housing and had difficulties with shopping, etc,; and
the other was of the young Vietnam Vet who stated that his mother "died of a
broken heart." I have to concede that this was a little too emotional for
me. But the main point was that this film was made by women and is about
women. Most audiences seem to miss this.
I have also showed this video to undergraduate classes (Ethnic Minorities,
in SOC at Smith College; and to other classes here at Purdue when I have
been asked to show it by other instructors). The discussions don't usually
go off too deeply (for the same reasons as you mention, Tom). BUt I always
find at least three students who show further interest.
I don't have the materials with me now, but I used to also give the
information that I got from the Big Mountain Legal Defense (who had an
office in Flagstaff and in DC). I have not had any materials from them
since 1991.
I showed it again in the winter of 1986 as a series of films for Human
Rights Week, this time in Sitka, Alaska. The Alaska NAtive Brotherhood
sponsored this particular viewing, and their hall was packed. A well-known
woman of the community who was a widow of one of the tribal leaders of the
Tlingit, was a Navaho, and she voluntarily spoke after the viewing. Again,
a collection was taken for the Big Mountain Legal Defense. One other
reaction from the audience was an eye-opener for me. Many in the audience
were environmentalists and they were shocked when Representative Udall from
Colorado (who I believe is dead now) looked straight into the camera and
said that "we all as Americans have to give way to progress. If a new
highway needs to be built, and it goes through our front living room, then
we have to make way for progress." His insensitive attitude to the plight
of relocation angered the environmental folks. I was glad for their outrage
(as it did me!), but I didn't understand their perspective until someone
from the audience explained. Udall was a champion for them in Alaska
fighting to keep forests from being cut down, etc. That was a new lesson
for me. I did not realize until then, that US Senators and US
Representatives pick their topics that try to put them in the best light of
their local constituents. So Udall kept the mainstream view down in the
South-West and spoke up for the Alaska environment. [A similar action, I
learned when I taught immigration policy: Senator Simpson from Wyoming is
often the co-author with Kennedy on Immigration bills, but it is not an
issue in Wyoming!!!] I hope this point is understood.
When I showed it to members of the Navajo Nation, they were indifferent.
That was in the summer of 1992! NObody was willing to get into a
discussion.
TOM: you asked for some information, and I have passed on some experineces
that I have had with showing the film/video. I still think it is a good
film (with some over-emotional scenes) that shows good footage, excellent
interviews, and introduces some important players to the uniniated. PLease
note, also, that Peter McDonald (whose voice one hears at the beginning of
the film, giving evidence to the Senate hearings), was then legal advisor,
and then later President of the NAvajo NAtion, and later fell into
corruption and is now incarcerated in State Prison. Those are some of the
up-datings that students need to know.
My guess is that there will be many people in the network who will not like
the film for several resons. Hopefully, any NAvajo or Hopi would respond
without the emotional involvement that they might feel themselves. My own
conclusions were that the film makers are showing that it is broken treaties
and the US government that have caused this conflict: "The NAvaojo NAtion
should be one of the richest minorities in the US." I came away with the
feeling that there were many people from the Hopis and the NAvajos that were
willing to work together to solve the boundary disputes (which goes on
together), but that there is no conflict about ownership of the mineral
deposits. The conflict there seems to be that the US Govt (like the South
African Govt and the home- land) wants the rich land back and is causing the
conflict between the Hopis and the Navajos. I understand (from my visit
there working for Legal Defense in Window Rock) that there is a patchwork of
land (referred to as checkerboard land) that does not belong to the
NAtives. Peabody is still working the land. But some legislation has been
established. Peabody have agreed to cover the land that has been stripped
mined with grass and return the land looking better than it did before. The
landscape has been torn up, but with many issues, money talks. These
projects provide work. In the film too, you will see Navajo menputting up
fences (and later the women taking them down). Conflicts like this become
difficult to understand without living on the reservation. I always want to
know why someone has a particular perspective.
For example, in the early part of the film, we are exposed to the early
Tribal Councils (that were appointed by the BIA chiefs and often corrupted
with deals like Peabody). We get a sense that tribal members want their own
councils, and others want tribal elders to be consulted. My own sense is
that all those confusions still exist today. There are still people who
want to recognize the old tribal councils.
So, the bottom line is: How can an outsider understand what is going on
when in trying to understand, to be supportive of "just causes", we are told
different stories? MAny tribal members resent those of us who are not
members of tribal nations but who wish to be advocates in their struggle.
At best, we are called "wannabes", although I am pleased to say that has not
been said of me (mainly because of my physical and cultural background, I
think).
We'll see, Tom, what the reaction is to my honest appraisal of _Broken
Rainbow_ as we have seen how there are members of tribal nations who do not
object to NAtive logos and symbols being used by sports teams and
universities.
CHEERIO for now, and hope that you might find this helpful, and that others
might be willing to respond to MY OWN assesment and perhaps give ME
something to think about too.
ALOHA
BFS