I'd like to correct a few incomprehensible sentences that I wrote in the
earlier article that I've just discovered in what I dashed off earlier today:
> 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
I meant "to enable," of course.
> help address the kinds of problems that were spoken about at the Tribal
> Lands conference I attended at Smith College in September of 1989...
I just got a note from Fred Jeffrey (amdcpq@webtv.net), who posted the
article into which I inserted my comments, saying that he also attended
this conference. Small world, eh?
> 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 had intended to write "...resulted in *the displacement of* peoples..."
I believe the point I was trying to make there has to do with my aware-
ness that simply protecting and defending the rights of people because
of their claims to that land based on tenure is not my only intent. I
have a sense that living on land implies a certain responsibility to it,
and not just a right of "ownership" in the conventional legal sense many
of us have. It seems to me that my own personal sense of "indigenous"
carries with it this consciousness of land held communally where there
is an implied responsibility to care for the land because of the close
relationship one has with it and because of observations that become
part of tradition that we depend on and are part of the landscape,
rather than it being seen as something to which we lay exclusive claim.
It seems that historically it has generally been true that the first
reaction of the indigenous peoples of a land being willing to share the
land with the newcomers who came with an agenda of "taking possession"
of the land, because they could not conceive of such an agenda or the
kind of thinking that might bring it about, even if they had engaged in
routine squabbles with their neighbors over territory. Perhaps my own
notions are somewhat naiive here, and I would do well to make a more
careful study of the subject.
I'm sorry not to have checked over what I wrote more carefully before
sending it. I guess I was in a somewhat emotional state at the time, being
aware as I am that I cannot do as good a job as I would like in handling
this and the other mailing lists I operate. I'll have more to say over the
course of time as I strive to get a clearer sense of where I want to go
from here and how members of this electronic community might be able to
help make whatever transition might become necessary as a result.
Thanks to you all for your support and understanding.
Given that I have taken such liberties here in expressing my own views,
and given that the question of what does "indigenous" really mean, I
think it would be only fair to permit some discussion of this subject
to take place here on this list, regardless of my general policy against
such things (mainly on grounds that the traffic on the list can become
too high and it loses its value as an information channel in direct
proportion to the volume of that traffic if only a portion of what is
posted is of interest to a given reader, which I think is a good working
assumption). Therefore, I'll invite others who might like to say some-
thing on this subject to do so, simply by responding to this article.
I'll also accept articles on how things have been going lately on this
list and whatever suggestions people might have for trying to retain a
good experience for everyone while trying to avoid the kind of open-
ended discussion that tends to make many mailing lists and newsgroups
practically useless as sources of reliable and interesting information.
However, just to ensure that this discussion does not itself lead to
that effect, let's say that we'll limit the discussion period to no
longer than two weeks and keep it within the bounds of these topics.
Thanks for your help and understanding, everyone.
Gary