Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 4:57 am Post subject: last poooossstt yeahhh goin cold turkey
this chapter was awesome! it is so reassuring to know that indians are still gettting fucked over and the us government is still not doing anything productive!
i thought the uprisings or resistances were interesting, i was surprised how successsful the alcatraz one was. they got up to 1000 people onto the island and held it for 19 months holy crap thats like a year and a half. the fish-ins seemed pretty wicked also, peaceful protest that was impactful enough to still talk about so many years later is significant even if it didn't have such a successful outcome. i liked the AIM stuff too, it is always kinda cool to see opressed groups actually rising up and fighting back although they didnt have such a great outcome either. it really sucks that wounded knee petered out and then the organization lost its following. it made it look like there was no longer and issue when in reality the reason the issue was less known was because the governement was fighting it more effectively.
i think the end was almost kinda hopefull, talking about how native emricans were becoming lawyers and were beinging to fight legal battles for their people instead of like physica battles n stufff. it still sucks though that after all of this time they are still very much fucked and their only victories have been on the terms of the us governmnet. it is very "cant beat em join em" situation and that is really sad because the indians should have never been beaten in the first place know what i mean?
yeah
do you think that native americans are taking the right path by conforming to american lifestyle to better their people/ regain terratory/history or do you think they should search out an alternative ? ? ?
So I know we already looked a lot at the second battle for wounded knee, but I really wanted to talk about it and this just helped fill in the gaps a little more. I also thought that AIM was soooo cool, but I kinda have some weird love of militant civil rights groups. They were an unusual combo of fundementalist, pan-indian nationalist, militant group. Im taking totalitarianism this mod and it all tied in for me. Out of the void, where American Indians are hardly acknowledge as people and they are not getting what they deserve the group arises; attempting to unite the people under one central identity. They try to unite people under their indian-ness and their ritual, in some way reverting back to an older time, where everyone was more connected to their indian identity. Page also said that they brought attention to "pan-Indian issues as economic independence, self-determination, political autonomy, and the education of Indian children"(383) They had been carried on "eagles feathers" of sitting bull and other mentioned who I dont remeber and the "hard drinking rebels" felt as though it was their turn to take up the fight, and essentially they have become my new fav group.
Then we go on to less violent shit, and in general I feel like non-violent protest is always the wrong way to go. I know plenty of people disagree with that, MLK in particular. And of course, it is a lot easier to say violent protest is the right way to go when I do not have to risk my life for it, but it makes one's presence know, which is key in getting what one wants. From what we have seen in this class, do people think violence has or has not been productive for the American Indians?
I thought the ideas and things they did to protest in this chapter was pretty smart. They really targeted specific places that would bring even more meaning to the protests, meaning and significance that white people would know also. Like boarding the Mayflower 2 on Thanksgiving and staging a protest on the site of the Wounded Knee Massacre. I was amazed at how effective the Trail of Broken Treaties was. That protest really brought Native Americans from all different tribes together and they brought attention to themselves by occupying a BIA office. And they were succesful. "The commissioner of Indian Affairs was fired, and a new, higher-level post was created-assistant secretary of the interior for Indian Affairs-and filled by an Iowa Indian." (page 385) The outcome of their protest led in the right direction. I think it was one of the first time a Native American was in any sort of power in the government. Correct me if I am wrong. I am confused though why this protest and sign of resistance worked. The Native Americans had resisted for so long but they ussually got no results or it just hurt them. Did this resistance work because it was mostly peaceful?
I am also confused about something Page wrote on page 381 "One of the most widely admired features common in Indian cultures is the respect people have for the elders. So while the militant Indian youths could talk of Uncle Tomahawks, they could not bring themselves to the level of condemnation that many militant white youth movements regularly leveled against older generations." So does that mean that since they respected the elders so much the younger people could not or did not want to be as radical because it would upset the elders? Is he saying that they might have had more success if they did not respect the elders as much?
From what we have seen in this class, do people think violence has or has not been productive for the American Indians?
It really hasn't been. Unfortunately, the US (or earlier, the Europ. settlers) has had bigger and better weapons, and more people. If the Native Americans were to rebel violently, the US could squish 'em in 5 seconds flat. Think about it, the US has the SWAT team, the air force, police, etc etc. Compared to the Native American population... Well, there really isn't one. Even if Native Americans had the same weapons, the US has more resources if the two were to go into battle.
In this chapter, I saw a new type of resistance: working within the system. On page 390, Page writes that Native Americans with law degrees had a "profound understanding of Indian points of view as well as an ability to turn the Anglo AMerican legal system to Indian advantage." What's particularly interesting about this type of resistance is that you have to be incredibly well (versed?) in both worlds. If that's not so, then the lawyer is weak on both ends. And ther's something profoundly powerful in using the domiant power's resources to benefit those being oppressed. It's like twisting methods of oppression in the opposite direction. It's unlike anything I've seen before in this reading. I wonder if anyone thinks this is just another form of assimilation. How so?
Howdy
So in response to Celina’s question, I think that violence has worked better for the Native Americans than any other form of resistance they have used. When they used violence they at least got media attention. And that makes me really sad. I am totally a pacifist and it is so disheartening to know that the only choice left to these people was to use guns to get the attention they deserve. It depresses me that the only way to get the attention of the US government is to lash out against them.
A bunch of the stuff in this chapter was talked about in the movie, but there were a lot of other Native American protests that I had never heard about (these all tended to be non-violent instances…). Like the Alcatraz sit-in. I had never heard about that before this reading. I had heard of Wounded Knee but not Alcatraz.
As for the comment about “working in the system” I also thought that was an interesting idea, but it did not appear to be all that effective. I think that it had something to do with the fact that the Native Americans as a whole could not come to a consensus on what they wanted. Some Natives kept pushing treaties while others were pushing the idea of being US citizens and their rights as such.
Lastly, I too thought that AIM was really amazing. Though they were more violent than I would have liked, they really brought the Native American plight to attention in America. Despite this, however, there was a great divide in the Native American community on this issue. A lot of the younger, more radical Natives were in favor of AIM, but the older, more traditional Native Americans were not as happy with them. Why do you think that was? I think it had something to do with the fact that being violent reinforced the idea of the “savage Indian” but I’m not sure.
Bye all
Thanks Gigi!
So i kinda liked this reading and it was a good last one to have. However it kind of just went from event to event although perhaps there is no way around this.
But i was really saddened by this reading. Even in the midst of all the change in the 60's and 70's the people that we took the land from in the first place did not have their wishes met as well as other groups. I feel that this was the case because they were not a majority. Nobody seems to really care about minorities. This sad fact makes the other civil rights movements seem less wonderful as it could be seen as the white people accepting these groups out of necessity.
Max I really like your question about whether the Natives should conform to our society because I always think "Why cant we all just be equal humans treated the same" Then i remember that groups such as Native Americans wanted certain differences and to preserve their culture.
(I wonder whether a small minority of American people will ever be fighting to preserve their western culture)
So i guess i believe that working within the system can be good and effective but if one is too far immersed into the system what culture are they fighting for?
It does seem as though some of the acts of dissent were or at least should have been effective. after spending more than a year and a half on Alcatraz one would think that the government would do something. Why didn't they meet the requests of the Natives not that i would have expected them to but was it a matter of money or principal or what.
What would it take for Indians to have what they considered successful movement movement? Do their small numbers destroy any chance of retaliation and people attention?
I found the situation that the Indian Claims Commission was in very intresting. Because the ICC was in a compleatly impossibe situation to navigate correctly. They had to navigate the very strange in beetween giving stolen wealth back to the tribes, while at the same time not give enough that congress would shut them. Then at the same time they had to figure out the worth of former Indian land, from a combination of sentimental, riligiios, mineral, and agricultuiral value. In the end though there choice was entirly dependant on the whim of the treasury, and they never came up with a system to value land.
It seems that in the 60's and 70's white peoples view of Native Americans has changed from distain to activly ignoring them, do you guys agree with this statment or not?
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:28 am Post subject: fin
I found all the recollections of the resistance/publicity events very interesting, especially the one on Alcatraz because it was freeing and unproblematic land for them, yet they were still removed. The typical requests were for acknowledgment of broken treaties and asking for related change. While usually they weren’t too successful they achieved a lot of attention and got the government to at least agree to more things even if they weren’t actually enforced nor did anything. Alcatraz changed the way Indians were seen by the media and how they saw themselves. Having pride instead of secrecy. This is supported much later in the chapter by the Census showing a 72% raise in Native American population. Not due to a baby boom but rather people acknowledging themselves as Indians where they did not before.
Also we read a lot about the Native American youth’s role in resistance and involvement in (considered) radicalism. The National Indian Youth Council and of course the American Indian Movement seemed to be two big ones largely supported by youth. But not everyone appreciated or agreed with what they were doing: “Many older Indian people were uncomfortable with the confrontational style” and reservation Indians being “a bit dismayed at the behavior of their urban relatives.” This made sense to me and reminded me of differentiating opinions on the question of at what point is violence necessary? In the movie today a woman proclaims that “we have to commit violence to be heard”. At what point is violence necessary? Personally I can understand what would lead the neglected and ignored Native Americans to feel forced to rebel this way but I doubt everyone would agree.
A quote I found helpful and informative: “As reasonable and surprisingly responsive to Indian cultural ways as this act appeared to be, it was enacted with virtually no input from the Indians and was deeply resented by many for that reason” I found this helpful because we keep reading about all of these treaties and acts being passed and agreed upon yet nothing much really seems to change. And now I can see how the acts might have been a little off the mark and so even with good intentions in mind, unable to really be effective. Later in the reading there is a lot more talk about AIM like the movie does too, just like how they are the “spark plug” for action amongst some Indians. As a whole, my impression of AIM is as very proud and motivated group which is kind of disconnected from the roots of what they are fighting in the name of. From a few of the descriptions by Page though, AIM just seems to lose out in the end and sputter out.
A few more quick things: laws being “awarded” to tribes by Congress seemed messed up, foster homes a big issue but seemed to be working out, and pot hunting was a curiously lucrative activity. Also I just need to mention about Court of Claims and how even though they were the typical, slow, biased government variety of project they appeared to be a step in the right direction and were clearing up concerns tribes had little by little. At least there was/is? some sort of venue even if it was unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
I'm glad this was our last reading... not only because I've been Jake Paged-out, but also because of the series of events/way it ended. Not to say it was a happy ending or anything, but I think it's a good place to end. I think the last sentence of the chapter put it well -- "For all the pan-Indian impetus of the latet twentieth century, and for all the shared history and difficulties and occasional triumphs of that ethnic group called Indians, they remain in fact many separate cultures, separate nations, and sometimes still uneasy neighbors." (p. 403) I think Page puts that very well. It frustrates me that we had to read 403 pages of facts and opinions and whatnot... not to mention going through the thousands of years of experiences... to reach that conclusion. Like Page said, there is no one single "solution" to the "Indian question." There most likely never will be. And that just really sucks...
Gigi - I was confused about that quote that you brought up, as well. When I was reading it, I couldn't figure out if Page meant that they - the militant youth - didn't want to disrespect the elders, therefore they in a way censored their actions... I don't know. Page goes on, however, to say that "There were gaps among Indians. Many older Indian people generally were uncomfortable with the confrontational style, and reservation Indians were, as often as not, shocked and a bit dismayed by the behavior of their urban relatives." That leads me to believe that regardless of the fact that the youth respect and look up to the elders so much, the older Indian people still sometimes disapproved of what the youth were doing. I think? I'm also wondering why and what the "urban relatives" were doing that shocked and dismayed the elders.. Was it the violence that they were using? If so, that seems kind of hypocritical of them. Bleh.[/i]
Soo to try and answer Max's question, I think that conforming seems to be the only thing that doesnt have negative repercussions. Most of the resistance movements were not well received by the U.S. government and I feel like the government really misunderstood some of the resistance methods, therefore creating more tension between the two groups. It seems like anytime the Native Americans try to do something, the ghost dance for example, no matter how simple and nonthreatening, the government sees it as threatening and completely freaks out. I would hope, though, that there is a way for them to keep their heritage because i think the current "conforming" is completely wrong.
Celina brought up the next thing i wanted to talk about, mainly because thats what i wrote my paper on!! In my paper i said that their violent rebellions didnt work and that they actually made things much worse. I completely agree with what you said about the U.S. being able to wipe them out if they had all decided to basically go to war.
I also agree with what you said about the Native Americans with law degrees. I think that this is a really good way to try and fix things for their people. I think if they could somehow excel in the "white man's world" and, for example, become a lawyer, that they could maybe have a legitimate chance at changing things. It would still be really hard because they are definitely discriminated against but if they started to get into the government and the law and other places of high respect and power that it would really help their cause.
So do you think that this is plausible? That a Native American could hold high office in the government? maybe this is already happening, I dont really know.
Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:03 am Post subject: last bost
I enjoyed this reading, and thought it fit very well as our last reading, but I also found it discouraging/depressing. One interesting thing I picked up on while reading was the size comparison of these demonstrations versus other civil rights demonstrations. There were merely hundreds of people in the demonstrations/protests we read about whereas there were thousands of people present in various demonstrations/protests in the Civil Rights Movement. And the really sad thing about it is, the only reason there were so few Native American’s to participate in the demonstrations is because, historically, so many of them have been killed. Also while it talked about how most the American population was on the side of the Native American Activists, I feel like they were only morally on their side. For example, If they had been living on Native American land, I don’t feel like they would have decided to peacefully leave the land and give up their home and property etc so that Native American’s could reclaim it. So while they were morally on their side, they wouldn’t have actually stood up and done anything
In response to the question “From what we have seen in this class, do people think violence has or has not been productive for the American Indians?”
I do not think violence has been productive for the Native Americans, but I feel like it has been effective. Nothing has really been gained, except more attention to their issues, but it has not really caused any real losses except for human life, and those loses that were inevitable anyway.
My question: Do you think the protests/demonstrations would have been more effective if there was a greater population of Native Americans taking part and/or there were more of them as a whole?
Anyway, Max when you said “this chapter was awesome! it is so reassuring to know that indians are still getting fucked over and the us government is still not doing anything productive!” I laughed because I was thinking the exact same thing. Like really, what the hell US government, way to help out a lot! You’re doing an awesome job….idiots.
So in the beginning of this chapter, when Page talked about the Indians of All Tribes I was really interested. I think it’s really great that despite the differences they all have, being in different tribes and having different cultures, they still recognize their similarities and it’s so easy for them to get along and bond, despite their differences.
On pg. 379 the statement that the Indians of All Tribes released, “We came to Alcatraz because we were sick and tired of being pushed around, exploited, and degraded everywhere we turned in our own country,” really ties to my essay actually. I wrote about how the violent resistance the NAs resulted in using was justified. I think that this is a great example; all of the NAs have been continuously taken advantage of and why they took violent measures to resist.
So my question is do you think the “most widely admired features common in Indian cultures is the respect people have for elders,” (pg 381) is still a true statement?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
