- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments from NativeNet listowner, Gary Trujillo (gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us):
When I relayed this article, it was actually with some hesitation - and
maybe even some trepidation, since I feel myself starting to lose touch
with the vision that I had in starting what has become NativeNet, and I'm
even feeling a stronger sense of needing to spend some time "taking stock"
and re-evaluating my own purposes and how well they are being achieved in
the activity of operating these mailing lists.
Though I would like to be able to write at length on this subject, my
time is short now and I'm not at all in the proper frame of mind, but I
would like to at least indicate quickly a few considerations that would
to into a fuller exploration of this topic. Perhaps I can return to this
matter within the next couple of months in a more comprehensive way.
There are, I believe, definitions of words like "indigenous" that are used
in organizations like the United Nations that are internationally recognized.
It might be useful to consult those definitions, as I imagine will happen in
the case the article Scott posted refers to in deciding how to handle the
claim being made by the Scots. Elements of what it means in international
parlance to qualify as "indigenous," I believe, include having a certain
kind of spiritual relationship with the land and having traditions in which
one has a certain subsistence kind of relationship with the immediate land
base, even in the case of nomadic peoples, whose "land base" may not repre-
sent a fixed domicile.
Briefly, my own purposes in starting NATIVE-L and the other NativeNet lists
in 1989 and subsequently had to do with attempting to use computer-based
networking technology to enabling the exchange of information that could
help address the kinds of problems that were spoken about at the Tribal
Lands conference I attended at Smith College in September of 1989 (more
information about that conference can be found under the "information"
heading via NativeNet's Web site at "http://www.fdl.cc.mn.us/natnet/"). I
did not anticipate at that time that the exchange would end up becoming as
far-reaching as it has or be as difficult as it has become to manage. A lot
has happened since 1989, principally the emergence of the World Wide Web as
a primary mechanism for exchanging information that was once possible only
by means of electronic mailing lists and newsgroups. Though I have attempted
to discourage the posting of materials on NATIVE-L that are better handled by
means of Web sites, it is often a difficult call to make.
In any event, my concerns at this point extend far beyond the implications
of the kind of article this posting refers to involving attempts to seek
recognition as an indigenous people by those whose ancestors, as the article
itself recognizes, became part of a massive exodus from their homelands that
resulted in peoples whom none would dispute deserve that designation. I am
trying to assess how to achieve a transition that I know is necessary and
inevitable, brought upon both by technological changes and my own personal
need to put my energies into efforts that are more closely aligned with my
original purposes than it often feels I am able to do by means of managing
these mailing lists (the other lists: NAT-EDU, NAT-LANG and NAT-HLTH are
considerably easier to handle, because the traffic on them is lighter and
the discussions more specialized, so it is easier to make judgement calls
about what is and what is not appropriate on one of those mailing lists).
Before closing I'd like to mention one note I received recently which
lamented the fact that NATIVE-L does not provide an opportunity for back-
and-forth discussion of some of the important subjects that are talked
about in this forum and that it sometimes feels as if the list can become
a platform for those having narrowly defined semi-political interests to
persuade others of their views, but there is no opportunity to counter or
even comment on such postings because of my policy of not using NATIVE-L
as a discussion forum (which I justify in my own mind on a number of what
seem to me to be important grounds). I'm afraid I have no real solution
for this problem readily at hand, but I would like to say that, though
powerless to address the problem, I find it troubling also. Put simply,
I do not have the necessary energy nor the wisdom to operate such a forum
at this point in my life (though I did try to do so in the past) and I know
now that attempting to do more on the basis of volunteer help is not a real
solution either, since it would take as much or more energy to take advan-
tage of various offers I have received.
Suffice it to say for now that I am exploring other options for regaining
a sense of fulfilling my original purposes and that I'll do the best I can
to maintain what now exists for as long as possible, and I'll try to keep
you all posted on my decisions as time goes on.
As to the comments offered above, you might want to direct your responses
to Fred (see address above), since, as much as I might find it interesting
to get a sense of how others feel about the issue he raises, this is not
the place to explore the subject (those of you reading this article via
Usenet can, of course, discuss the matter to your heart's content). I will
say, though, that I think that it should be both useful and instructive for
those descended from immigrants to consider the differences in how they and
their ancestors use(d) and relate(d) to the land compared with patterns of
interaction with the land and its ecosystems of the indigenous inhabitants.
There is much that goes into producing the kind of consciousness that has
an inherent reverence for the place one lives and takes care to leave it
in as good a shape as one found it - not simply for one's descendants, but
because it is just the right thing to do when one sees oneself as part of
the web that includes all things - living and non-living. Whatever word
one uses to describe this relationship, and whatever arguments might be
advanced as to whether or not there ever is, was, or will be a people who
truly live with such a consciousness uppermost in their minds, it is to
promote such a sense that I would like to direct my own energies - not
simply to facilitate or to be part of a struggle to achieve political rights
conceived on the basis of economic and social equality, as important as I
hold those things to be.
I apologize to those of you who have written to me over the course of the
past year and a half or so with your observations concerning my attempts
to focus NATIVE-L primarily on what seem to be urgent alerts pertaining
to the protection and well-being of indigenous peoples, however we might
define that term, and what sometimes might seem like arbitrary policies
concerning which article that are submitted are actually relayed. I do
appreciate these messages, however, as well as the messages of support I
have received from those who have written to say they understand how
difficult it can be to do what I have been attempting to do here. Thanks
to all of you for your understanding, whatever lies ahead.
Fred makes some good points in his comments above, which is why I have
chosen to relay his article and to use it as a basis for what I have
written here myself. I feel that, as his words imply, it is useful and
important to consider our origins, in a number of senses of that term.
I feel that getting a good understanding of the larger patterns of history
and our part in that history (and what we can do through our own efforts
to determine and influence what is open to us to affect) is an essential
part of a truly meaningful life. Knowing where we have come from and
thinking about where we are going must surely be an essential part of a
truly human life. For me this process is not so much about finding
something to believe or even to "believe in" in a more general sense.
Rather it is about remaining open and aware and questioning and ready to
admit and act with an awareness of our mistakes and shortcomings, our
prejudices and other limitations as well as to know and to remain ever
hopeful about our possibilities. I feel it is important to be able to
share what we know and have and can imagine with one another and all that
lives and moves and all that is home for any creature on this fragile
and precious planet of ours - and that we find those things we have in
common with one another, as Fred seems to suggest. "Finding our way
home," to use his phrase, would seem to be fairly complex on one level,
yet fairly easy on another. In both cases, I feel the solution begins
with being able to respect and appreciate all that we share with one
another and to imagine what we might be able to achieve together by
keeping these things in mind and finding opportunities to work to solve
our common problems as we go about our daily lives. So whatever else
we might choose to believe or to believe in, perhaps we can believe in
ourselves and our own capacity to discover within ourselves a principle
and a reality that unites us all and that permits us to understand the
responsibility we have to ourselves, to one another, and to our earthly
home and all it harbors. So for me, the idea of deciding to "cherish"
our home means something other than deciding we own the land we call
home and understanding that we must share that land with many others
and we should understand how we and our people came to and came by
the lands we call our own.
That's all for now.
Gary
P.S. My apologies to those of you who might feel I have mounted a soapbox
here uttering semi-coherent idealistic ramblings here. I just needed to
get a few things off my chest, perhaps. In any event, these are the things
that are most important to me and that lie at the base of my efforts for
the past 7 1/2 years. Whatever I decide to do in future will, at least in
some measure, be an attempt to live in accordance with these feelings and
ideas, and not simply feelings of responsibility to carry on mechanically
with what I have done in the past.