[Blackbear]

************************************************** ************
This Message Is Reprinted Under The Fair Use
Doctrine Of International Copyright Law:
_http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html_
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
************************************************** ************

FROM: INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY NEWSPAPER

_http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412730_
(http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412730)

Mohawk: A Racist Doctrine Ensures Racist Behavior

(javascript:PrintWindow();) Posted: March 24, 2006 by: _John Mohawk_
(http://www.indiancountry.com/author.cfm?id=220) / Indian Country Today

No one dares say anything negative about Jewish people, even if the
comment is true or partly true. When Steven Spielberg directed a movie on the
reaction to the murders of Israeli athletes in Munich more than 30 years ago,
commentators like neo-conservative ideologue Charles Krauthammer complained that
Spielberg had sided with the Palestinians, which is a no-no.

Spielberg was criticized even though his movie is not remotely racist.
Others have had their careers destroyed, and recently a historian who denied the
reality of the Holocaust (a bigoted position, no doubt) actually went to jail.
And no one dares say anything negative about black people, lest they face
(often legitimate) charges of racism. And check out Larry Summers, the
obnoxious president of Harvard who ended up resigning following, among other
ill-fated remarks, expressions of female biological limitations regarding certain
academic disciplines.

OK, so you have to be careful when talking about women, blacks and people of
Jewish heritage. There is, for those bigots who need a cause and would like
to vent some racist venom, one group upon which it is perpetually open
season: indigenous peoples, aka Indians! You can, apparently, make racist remarks
about them at will and there will be little or no outcry. This tendency is so
ingrained in the culture that people don't even recognize racist remarks
when they are directed at Indians! They're a freebie! There are at least two
reasons for this. The first is a stain on the American culture. Racist remarks
about American Indians are part of the American consensus about Indians, a
consensus which is at the center of the fabric of American culture but which
today is inadequately challenged.

The first has to do with the mythology, the founding myth, of America. Long
ago, American historians generally reached a consensus by which they
promoted as fact stories that were both inaccurate and mythological in purpose. The
myth goes all the way back to the debates in the Spanish colonies between
Juan Gines de Sepulveda and Bartolome de las Casas.

Sepulveda is the ''father of modern racism'' who claimed that the Spanish
were entitled to benefit from colonization of the Indians because of the
supposed virtues of the Spanish and the sins and other deficiencies of the Indians.
The first was that the Spanish offered to the Indians the benefits of
Spanish ''civilization,'' a term which those who used it assumed that those who
heard it would understand to designate an entitlement. The Spanish adorned
themselves with the mantle of ''civilization.'' (Forget about the origins of the
word and its connection to cities: ''civilization'' is now completely
associated with something approaching utopia, an entitlement of Christian society.)

In land-claim cases in American case law, the lawyers and judges often find
the origins of America's claim to Indian land in the ''doctrine of discover
y'' and trace it from there. The doctrine was a claim that God had given all
the lands of the Earth to Christendom (later, when the state system was
adopted, the Christian nations); that whenever these Christian peoples encountered
other peoples on previously unknown (to them) lands, they had ''discovered''
them and therefore had a right to ''pre-emption,'' the first right to divest
the indigenous of their land because it wasn't really their land - they were
just occupying it until the Christians arrived.

It's a fantastic claim: Since the beginning of time, past the Ice Ages and
centuries before the Bible appeared, the Christians ''owned'' North America
and the Indians possessed a mere ''right of occupancy'' which they could
exercise until the Christians ''discovered'' them and found a way to divest them of
it.

Sepulveda's racism was deeply ingrained with the rhetoric of civilization,
his evidence of Spanish superiority predicated on the Indians' lack of Spanish
culture. The message: You are not us (white Christians) and therefore you
have no real rights. You were born inferior to us; your cultures are inferior
to ours; God gave us rights to all that is yours. Racism is about culture.

''Civilized'' people claim qualities of personality that are nowhere evident
in the Spanish leadership of the conquest. They claimed to be gentle,
cultivated, devoted to the arts. In Christian civilization, the civilized represent
the best assumed qualities of Jesus, including compassion, generosity,
justice and righteousness. Even as Sepulveda was ascribing these qualities to the
Spanish conquerors of his day, the Inquisition was torturing and murdering
innocent people, taking their property and using the powers of government to
achieve robbery, fraud and a great litany of criminal behavior.

Civilization's children were, upon examination, given to behaviors that were
barbarous. All that talk about superior civilizations, God's will and
''discovery'' is just so much racist drivel.

Fast-forward to 18th-century North America. The early English colonists
embraced the Spanish model of superiority due to ''civilization.'' To this was
added the idea of the empty land (terra nullius), including the idea that
Indians were nomads, that they were barbarous, that they lacked attributes which
were imaged to be positive traits of the English. (As a matter of fact, the
historic English lacked exactly those qualities: honesty, a nobility of purpose
and so forth. About the only thing they could claim is that they mostly
stayed in one place most of the year. But so did many Indians; and anyway,
there's nothing wrong with being nomadic.)

Racism in the Sepulveda model involved a false and hypocritical claim to
virtues of Christendom on the one hand, and an absence of virtues among all
others as a group. We know today that the claims to virtue by the English are
unsupported in the historic and contemporary records. In the same way that the
contemporary record does not support that people with strong Christian beliefs
have more stable marriages (''red'' states have higher divorce rates than
''blue'' states), it is also true that Christians do not have a history of
less violence than other populations. Christian populations are not virtuous
because they are Christian. Like other peoples, they have to work at it to
achieve virtue.

Indian peoples continue to suffer under the pall of racist ideas that are
centuries old. Just last year, the Supreme Court re-affirmed its belief in the
racist ''doctrine of discovery'' in a land-claim case. In a recent book,
Robert Williams Jr. detailed the use of such language and sources by the court's
former chief justice, William Rehnquist. The book, ''Like a Loaded Weapon:
The Rehnquist Court, Indian Rights, and the Legal History of Racism in
America,'' is interesting reading. If Rehnquist had made those kinds of statements
about other peoples, there would have been a hue and cry. But because it was
directed at Indians, the racism beat goes on unchallenged.

John C. Mohawk, Ph.D., columnist for Indian Country Today, is a noted author
and historian. He is an associate professor of American studies and director
of Indigenous studies at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

[Wakalapi]

That's funny, Steven Spielberg is Jewish, too.

[Gache]

More indians = less problems we have. Figure it out folks its a numbers game.

[Blackbear]

So you are saying that if there are more of us, there would be less discrimination or racist comments hurled our way?

The population of african americans and mexican and latino americans has increased substantially... do you see less discrimination and less racism against them? Or are you just seeing more of them in the public eye than you used to (ie: tv, music , sports)?

If there are more of us there are going to be more good paying jobs close to reservations and heavily indian populated areas than there are now and that they will not turn us away from them?

[Gache]

[QUOTE=Blackbear]So you are saying that if there are more of us, there would be less discrimination or racist comments hurled our way?

Yes the civil rights would never have existed if the population of the blacks was the same as indians. In fact blacks basically left us out of the civil rights equation because of our lack of numbers. Both blacks and hispanics, asians and jews have way more political clout than we do. What they have done with economically is not the issue. Though thats another topic altogether.

While all ethnic groups still suffer from descrimination most are much better off than they were 50 years ago.

Imagine if 50 million indians lived here what kind of voting power and influence we could have. Thats an achievable number by 2100.

[Blackbear]

[QUOTE=Gache]

Originally Posted by Blackbear

So you are saying that if there are more of us, there would be less discrimination or racist comments hurled our way?

Yes the civil rights would never have existed if the population of the blacks was the same as indians. In fact blacks basically left us out of the civil rights equation because of our lack of numbers. Both blacks and hispanics, asians and jews have way more political clout than we do. What they have done with economically is not the issue. Though thats another topic altogether.

While all ethnic groups still suffer from descrimination most are much better off than they were 50 years ago.

Imagine if 50 million indians lived here what kind of voting power and influence we could have. Thats an achievable number by 2100.

Don't get me wrong, I think more natives is a good thing, but I just don't see it reducing or obliviating discrimination and racism. There were more of us when europeans first came, did they care then? Nope. And the civil rights movement happened because blacks were mainstream in society. We were not included because we were Nations. And yet, we were also made US citizens whether we wanted to be or not. African Americans had to fight for that right. Our small numbers certainly don't have the political clout, that's for sure.. but after all that lobbying for some of our nation's casino monies, I'm sure things are going to be changing more and more now. But you know, Haudenosaunee don't vote because of the guswentah which says they stay out of our government affairs and we stay out of theirs. It's one of the things we established for our own protection and is one way of affirming that we ARE soveriegn nations who can and do govern ourselves, so having political clout with the american government... can be viewed as a two edged sword sometimes.

[hywalker]

Originally Posted by Blackbear

Don't get me wrong, I think more natives is a good thing, but I just don't see it reducing or obliviating discrimination and racism. There were more of us when europeans first came, did they care then? Nope. And the civil rights movement happened because blacks were mainstream in society. We were not included because we were Nations. And yet, we were also made US citizens whether we wanted to be or not. African Americans had to fight for that right. Our small numbers certainly don't have the political clout, that's for sure.. but after all that lobbying for some of our nation's casino monies, I'm sure things are going to be changing more and more now. But you know, Haudenosaunee don't vote because of the guswentah which says they stay out of our government affairs and we stay out of theirs. It's one of the things we established for our own protection and is one way of affirming that we ARE soveriegn nations who can and do govern ourselves, so having political clout with the american government... can be viewed as a two edged sword sometimes.

was kinda wondering what the percentages of registered to vote ndn's there were compared to ndn population. i understand (as much as i can lol) the whole not voting in u.s. gov politics due to soveriegn nations, heck i cant even get my wife to register, she sez she votes tribal and she wouldnt dream of registering in 2 different governments. I just get the feeling its very easy for elected gov. to overlook the non voters in america. Or do any think that even if ndns voted in masses that it wouldnt change the way government treats ndn's? this question has been on my mind a bit and would love to get ndn opinions on this. well if this reply or question doesnt make sense its due to still being asleep and shoulda left for work 20 min ago lmao . have a good weekend all

[Blackbear]

In my opinion Hywalker.. you got to get the American public to sympathize with the indians before government will do jack. But even when this happens, it seems like either the bare minimum is done, or it's started and as soon as the publicity dies down it's stopped.

[hywalker]

Originally Posted by Blackbear

In my opinion Hywalker.. you got to get the American public to sympathize with the indians before government will do jack. But even when this happens, it seems like either the bare minimum is done, or it's started and as soon as the publicity dies down it's stopped.

I understand swaying the general public to your cause. just was wondering if more native voters would do any swaying in itself. a representative of a district with a large population of ndn's it seems to me would bend over backwards for the vote. but then again that thought could possibly be just another fairy tale.

[Blackbear]

Well it's apparent that that politicians in NC want the lumbee vote and I have seen where they've been to navajo country .. but smaller tribes seem to be overlooked

[hywalker]

well i hope the interest in getting the lumbee and navajo vote will spread. being a union member i am heavy on the right to vote (not sure how much of voting is part of a fairy tale tho) and b4 i met my wife i never met anyone with a reason not too vote. i do hold on to the belief that my vote counts (last 2 pres elections has me questioning my belief), maybe its wishful thinkin but i keep thinking the stronger the race is represented in registered voters the better chances u have of changing laws and such. k will stop there , i feel a word ramble coming on

ps i did get her to vote in one election. only cause a good friend was running for alderman and helped persuade her, he didnt win btw lol. she didnt feel good about it tho and dropped it like a bad habbit the day after she voted.

and personally i think our votes count on state level, reps congressmen , govenors, and passing state laws. i have a feeling we dont do more than give our opinion on president and many of the federal laws.

(see ^ ramble lol)

[sokoki_wolf]

Originally Posted by hywalker

well i hope the interest in getting the lumbee and navajo vote will spread. being a union member i am heavy on the right to vote (not sure how much of voting is part of a fairy tale tho) and b4 i met my wife i never met anyone with a reason not too vote. i do hold on to the belief that my vote counts (last 2 pres elections has me questioning my belief), maybe its wishful thinkin but i keep thinking the stronger the race is represented in registered voters the better chances u have of changing laws and such. k will stop there , i feel a word ramble coming on

ps i did get her to vote in one election. only cause a good friend was running for alderman and helped persuade her, he didnt win btw lol. she didnt feel good about it tho and dropped it like a bad habbit the day after she voted.

and personally i think our votes count on state level, reps congressmen , govenors, and passing state laws. i have a feeling we dont do more than give our opinion on president and many of the federal laws.

(see ^ ramble lol)

id vote if the popular vote for president counted...theres a movement on now to do away with the electoral college and make popular what counts for president
i also vote in my tribal elections so i dont vote in us politics...its a sovereignty issue....

[Gache]

Sovereignty is a figment of our imagination. The american public doesnt care a lick about indians. At any moment congress can wipe sovereignty off the face of the earth. 2.6 million indians of which most probably have little interaction with indian communities is not something that the government is too terribly concerned about. Now the previous several comments have seemed to support my premise. More voters ie indians the better we have of eliminating obstacles to true soveriegnty.

Blackbear I have to disagree with your position about being more indians when the whites first came comparing to the situation now. First of all its a wrong comparison. Whites were far more advanced militarily it was about conquering. Not only that whites had a huge population base in europe versus the US native america.
While whites use a different method of conquest now, we have in our power as the whites are not replacing themselves with numbers ie 1.8 children per white woman, we are.

The navajo for example were only some few thousands at the turn of last century now are over 200,000 and are courted by politicians in arizona. Someone mentioned little tribes get no respect and thats because their little. Money isnt power unless there are people to back it up. Look at the jews in europe in the 1930s. A very rich group of people on average but basically got destroyed by the majority.

Money doesnt replace numbers. Numbers also insulate the traditional core of a nation that then are able to preserve what is really the value of indian people. Lakota, navaho and other large tribes will be the only ones with continuing language and cultural survival. Their numbers effectively shield encroaching white culture more effectively than say a 200 member nation in washington state.

Your right blackbear numbers is not a cure all.
Numbers equal power while power is not a cure all of anything which is what I think you missed in my statement blackbear, it gives us more ability to tackle social, economic, political and cultural issues.

The US is fast heading towards having no majority racial group which is nice and it opens up the established elite to court voters other than their own racial group especially in the next 100 years. Lots of indian babies.

Another situation related is to get indian hispanics to realize their native culture and revitalize their indianness. Do people realize that 90% of mexican indians put down white or metizo as their ancestry?

[Blackbear]

Originally Posted by Gache

Sovereignty is a figment of our imagination. The american public doesnt care a lick about indians. At any moment congress can wipe sovereignty off the face of the earth. 2.6 million indians of which most probably have little interaction with indian communities is not something that the government is too terribly concerned about. Now the previous several comments have seemed to support my premise. More voters ie indians the better we have of eliminating obstacles to true soveriegnty.

Not as long as that electoral vote is still in place Gache. They still won't care until non natives as a majority care. And well... guess what?

Blackbear I have to disagree with your position about being more indians when the whites first came comparing to the situation now. First of all its a wrong comparison. Whites were far more advanced militarily it was about conquering. Not only that whites had a huge population base in europe versus the US native america.
While whites use a different method of conquest now, we have in our power as the whites are not replacing themselves with numbers ie 1.8 children per white woman, we are.

White were NOT advanced militarily until about the 1700's. Think about it. They had to pack a rifle and the best still took about 30 seconds to do that. In the meantime while they are trying to pack gunpowder, packing and a lead ball into a gun and then light a fuse to fire it, there's a native man swinging a war club at your head or fireing an arrow at him. They also used to fight in rows. Stand in a big cube formation, the first row fires and then kneels to pack while the next row fires and so on... they had to learn to fight like us first. They were also so few in number that they had to enlist tribes to fight against each other?

The navajo for example were only some few thousands at the turn of last century now are over 200,000 and are courted by politicians in arizona. Someone mentioned little tribes get no respect and thats because their little. Money isnt power unless there are people to back it up. Look at the jews in europe in the 1930s. A very rich group of people on average but basically got destroyed by the majority.

Yep and like all the groups they went to, they made lots of promises they don't expect to keep. They know our concerns now, large or small and are supposed to by law to do many things that they don't... just because someone votes for them you think this would change? In other words, they don't do it now, why would they do it for a vote.

Money doesnt replace numbers. Numbers also insulate the traditional core of a nation that then are able to preserve what is really the value of indian people. Lakota, navaho and other large tribes will be the only ones with continuing language and cultural survival. Their numbers effectively shield encroaching white culture more effectively than say a 200 member nation in washington state.

Hmm.... yeah. Encroachment.... Ok so how about the water plan for Pine Ridge that was never completed or how the bars were wanting to build and extend on bear butte as well as a fireing range? How about the uranium mineing in Navajo country? And what have they done for the cherokee nations (the largest in number) lately? Nope, money seems to do the trick. It took a land claim suit before they cleaned up the water for the Onondaga. But yes, the larger the tribe the more of the culture is preserved. It's preserved even better when a native child is raised traditionally.. even without large numbers.

Your right blackbear numbers is not a cure all.
Numbers equal power while power is not a cure all of anything which is what I think you missed in my statement blackbear, it gives us more ability to tackle social, economic, political and cultural issues.

The US is fast heading towards having no majority racial group which is nice and it opens up the established elite to court voters other than their own racial group especially in the next 100 years. Lots of indian babies.

Another situation related is to get indian hispanics to realize their native culture and revitalize their indianness. Do people realize that 90% of mexican indians put down white or metizo as their ancestry?

I'm so sorry I'm pessimistic about this.. but seriously.. when they government sees us, they really don't see us as potential voters with a voice no matter how large our numbers.. they see us a people they are paying money out to. Money that could be used for more free lunches for them or extra vacations. In fact, it's the large number of Lumbees that I believe is why they have yet to this day not recieved true federal recognition. They just don't want to pay out any more money for funding tribal health care and such for them.

[Gache]

Electoral college votes the way of the majority of that state. Some heavy indian states are becoming the indian swing vote. Lets say the sioux of south dakota decide to triple their birth rate and everyone moves home 100,000 lakota 500,000 whites. The white population there has been stagnant or decreasing for 100 years. 100,000 lakota
10 years from now 130,000 lakota
20 years from now 169,000 lakota
30 years from now 217,000 lakota
40 years from now 280,000 lakota
Easily by now you have a large enough voting block to control the destiny of south dakota since the white population would be divided and no other sizable minority exists thats 3 legislators in congress for indians.

Politics of numbers blackbear pure and simple. The reason why politicians dont consider us a big deal is because indians arent united and are little islands. What did all that money that indians gave abramhoff do. Absolutely nothing. The whites used the indians like they always do and played one tribe off another.

Steel blackbear Steel is far more superior a weapon than a warclub ask the spanish who wiped out huge numbers of indians and they had much more primitive guns. Military tactics is a military technology and whites military strategy was superior at the time to indians. They had one we didnt.

Encroachment I was talking about language and culture not land. Numbers have preserved language and culture for the lakota and navaho but the iroquois have little of either because they are spread out in 50 different locations. Little islands means death.

Federal recognition? Why blackbear what does that do for us?
The lumbee are better off than most tribes without the federal recognition because they survive and thrive on independence while most federal indians live with the expectation and right of government subsidy. Federal recognition is useless. In fact I wish we would quit.


Look at the jews they are successful because they congregate and stick together we dont. Thats why we are losing.

[sokoki_wolf]

the electoral college generally votes the way the majority of the state does....not always as was seen in the 2000 election

[Blackbear]

yup.. and he made some of my points for me...

GAche.. get ready, I think you post might have some unfavorable responses for you. I'm done saying what I was saying.

[sokoki_wolf]

why do i get the feeling gache wants to breed us like animals to get the numbers up?
this is a bit too freeky even for me

[Mato Winyan]

Originally Posted by Gache

Some heavy indian states are becoming the indian swing vote. Lets say the sioux of south dakota decide to triple their birth rate and everyone moves home 100,000 lakota 500,000 whites. The white population there has been stagnant or decreasing for 100 years. 100,000 lakota
10 years from now 130,000 lakota
20 years from now 169,000 lakota
30 years from now 217,000 lakota
40 years from now 280,000 lakota
Easily by now you have a large enough voting block to control the destiny of south dakota since the white population would be divided and no other sizable minority exists thats 3 legislators in congress for indians.

Looks good written down but your "theory" (and that's all it is) has one major flaw. No way can this happen let's say on Pine Ridge because that is where I'm more familiar with. No way can an extra three babies per Lakota home (which would be an amazing idea to the older population )

Let's say that the birth population did start to increase like you say....in the mean time of your "40 years" prophesy.. what about the poor health care, poor housing conditions, ever increasing drug and alcohol usage, increasing aids and deadly std's on the rez? All these are decreasing the population at alarming rates!!

Face it...... as was said..... the white population is going to have to demand change or it's not going to happen in this lifetime.

[Gache]

Your point doesnt hold water mato the navaho had that rate of increase during this last century yet poor do not have the same disaster scenario you speak of. Besides africa has all of that and yet their population increases at an alarming rate!

Breed like animals sokoki? I just want indians to marry indians.
Maybe extinction is too freaky for you? Less than 10% of the 2.6 million figure tossed around by the US Census is fullblood.

Blackbear what points did I make for you. Unless considering I annihilated your points as points made for you.

Cmon people every racial group is better off than rez indians. Coincidently we are the smallest one too.