Self-determination & responsibility, constructive defeat, and repatriation

[Three short essays]

American native 2

Self-Determination & Responsibility

Native Americans have a long history of fighting to retain as much self-determination and sovereignty as they possibly can. It has not been easy and they have had to deal with more than their share of obstacles and setbacks along the way. However, the last half of the 20th Century saw large advances in their favor. The Native American community has recovered much of what has been taken from, or denied them. They are no longer looked upon as second class citizens. They have fought for and acquired their legal rights. They have demanded and received a voice in matters that concern them, such as the management of reservation resources, watering and fishing rights, health care, education, etc. Tribal governing has become a reality, not just a puppet show with the U.S. Government pulling all the strings. There are still some areas to tackle in the complex nature of self-governing or sovereignty when still relying on the U.S. Government for financial assistance in many areas. The adage, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” is still valid to some degree. But like a child fighting for their independence when coming of age, the Native American community has successfully utilized the knowledge acquired under the U.S. Government’s tutelage/support to strengthen their position and step out from under the Government’s wings. After all, the American eagle belonged to them first.

Self-determination and sovereignty in the 21st Century will continue to see strides made by the Native American community. However, they will never truly possess complete sovereignty until they master the various reservation bound problems, such as dropout rates, alcoholism, drugs, teen pregnancy, suicide, etc. This needs to occur in order to elevate the overall education levels, do away with rampant reservation unemployment, and create a solid reservation economy so they are not so dependent upon the U.S. Government handouts. If 30-50% of individual reservations remain below poverty lines and its citizen’s grow-up with a handout mentality the overall community will never completely break free of Uncle Sam peering over their shoulder and having a strong voice in certain areas of their life. It is similar to a child who leaves the nest, but still relies on their parents to pay for their education, health care, and other major costs still being obligated to their parents. They can never be truly independent until they can handle all the costs and responsibilities for themselves.

Sovereignty is not simply having the right to self-govern; it is handling all the responsibilities of your people, costs and all. I believe the Native American community can eventually reach this goal, but it is going to require a lot of hard work and life-changing decisions on the reservations… and not just from their capable leaders.

American native 3

Constructive Defeat

The concept of “constructive defeat” with regard to Native Americans is as follows: the chiefs and other elders of a tribe (or tribes) would press an issue, even though they knew they would eventually lose, in order to avoid a strict unconditional defeat. By pressing an issue long enough – whether through warfare, negotiation, or legal means – and becoming a thorn in the proverbial side of U.S. governmental expansion, the government representatives would be more willing to allow the tribe(s) to retain a say in the final outcome. The tribes who utilized this tactic to the best advantage ended up with larger reservations, greater provisions, and better treaty rights: including hunting and fishing rights off the reservation.

The treaty rights given under the Stevens treaties (and others) in the 19th Century are an example of “constructive defeat.” Not only did they allow certain tribes to hunt and fish off their reservations immediately following the treaty negotiations, those same rights eventually became the legal leg to stand on when Native Americans in the 20th Century found themselves at odds with the government and progress once more.

In places like Celilo Falls and other locations along the Columbia River various conflicts between Native Americans, non-Natives, private interests, and the Government erupted over water rights, fishing, and other disputes. Fishing canneries, dams, and other obstacles were taking their toll on traditional Indian catch sites. Skirmishes, fraudulent claims, and finger-pointing increased with each side polarizing against the others. Legal battles became common place, and some of the more complex cases would last beyond a decade. But a trend eventually began to be noticed: many of the treaty rights were being upheld. And even when treaty areas had to be sacrificed in the name of progress, it was becoming apparent that proper compensation had to be given to the Native Americans affected. Furthermore, the trend continued until not only compensation was given but Native Americans were getting power to have a voice in subsequent actions regarding water rights, fishing, unallotted reservation land, and various other concerns that they had little say about in previous years.

The “constructive defeats” 100-150 years earlier were coming back to reap dividends far beyond what the early elders could have imagined. They never dreamed of massive dams, hydro-electric power, fish hatcheries, and being an integral part in the decision making process during their time of conflict with encroaching settlers, military battles with the ever-growing cavalry, and imposing policies of an expansion driven Government. But they did have a strong urge for self-determination that allowed them to fight and retain as much of their way of life as they could. Their descendants should be proud.

American native 4

Repatriation

The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. It came on the heels of a 1989 Congressional law requiring the Smithsonian Institute to return most of its skeletal remains and grave goods to Native American communities. Although the law garnered strong public opinion in favor of the Native American community, it sparked controversy that has continued in some areas till present-day. By passing NAGPRA two prior laws, the 1906 Antiquities Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 were overturned. The earlier laws declared that Native American bones and other objects or remains discovered on federal land were the property of the United States. Naturally, as the Indian movement began to mature, and Native Americans found themselves with more power, a legal leg to stand on, and public opinion in their favor, they took on more and more causes related to self-determination and sovereignty. This was one of those causes.

The decision in favor of repatriation of Native American remains and grave goods has led to expanding battles to reclaim religious artifacts and even the use of sacred sites. There are still opposing forces who believe this trend is going too far. The remains of other nationalities, including Whites, are still exhibited and there is no equal effort to pacify every nationality in this same manner. Likewise, the remains of outlaws, carnival freak show attractions, war dead, and various other remains are studied and put on display. Thus, the opposing factions want to know why favoritism is now in play for the Native Americans. And other opposing groups, those in the hard hit fields of archaeology, anthropology, and those in charge of the educational and tourist attractions (museums, etc), though trying to work in collaboration with the Native Americans, still feel that advancing knowledge should be given a higher priority than it is presently. Thus, the controversy will most likely continue.

An interesting parallel regarding the NAGPRA controversy is how it can be shown to emulate the Native American experience over the past two centuries. When the governments of England, France, and Spain began their push to expand their domains in America they had little regard for the Indian obstacle. Dishonest trade, land grabs, force of arms, and various other strategies became the norm among themselves and against Indians. When the American government was established westward expansion took on a whole new meaning in terms of speed. Tribes were pushed off their lands, their way of life was disrupted in various ways, and burial sites and items meant little or nothing to a land hungry nation. Most of the tribes were scattered to the winds, placed on reservations, and some became extinct. That fact parallels their skeletal remains, confiscated items, and sacred ways: sent faraway, locked in exhibits, studied, and/or destroyed. The fate of both tribes and their remains and relics were in the hands of the U.S. government. Fortunately, it did not remain that way indefinitely.

When the Indian movement began to take shape after decades of striving to retain self-determination and sovereignty, the Native American communities began to achieve greater control on their behalf. After being pawns in the expansion game of the Government, blown about on the winds of governmental whims, the winds of change now favored them. The Native American community came together in a Pan-Indian effort. And as their power and rights grew they saw the opportunity to push for repatriation of remains and relics. So now the remains and relics are coming back to where they belong – like the Native American community has likewise been returning to its more traditional way of life, beliefs, etc.

 

Freewill

The mystery

is not what the Great Spirit

will make of us,

but what we make of ourselves

with the gifts

and free choice

Edoda (God/Father) has bestowed.

Has the Unehlanvhi (Creator)

set Himself up as taskmaster?

We are not shackled

by spiritual bonds.

We are not flogged

by anidawehi (angels).

We are not served

to Asgina (Beast/Devil) for lunch,

merely tempted.

When we succumb

we share responsibility

with the tempter

Why blame the All-Seer?

Freewill bears responsibility

and consequence

of each choice.

The only protection from blunders

is to wed Wisdom.

 

© JW Thomas

Counterculture Comparison

Counterculture: irreverence to the status quo. Patti Smith raging nonstop at a god and belief system she professes not to believe. Monty Python’s lampooning the mythological birth of Britain. Mel Brooks satirizing the equally myth-laden rugged individualism of the American West: steeped in the Westward Movement, civilization, progress, prejudice, and establishing a nation. Counterculture: outlet for the rebellion – wanted or needed – by the disenchanted, disillusioned, socio-political outcasts, and rebels (with or without a cause) to revolt against the man, the powers that be, the establishment.

Blazing Saddles was originally penned in 1971 under the title Black Bart by Andrew Bergman. The original script was optioned by Warner Brothers. The premise was simply to play 1874 as if it was 1974, with a black sheriff. Warner Brothers green-lighted the production of the film, and chose Alan Arkin to direct, and James Earl Jones to handle the lead character. Unfortunately, for Arkin and Jones, but fortunately for movie-goers, the Hollywood stars were cosmically unaligned and the original production disappeared into the black hole of disappointed dreams.

Mel Brooks was given the directorial nod, along with carte blanch; and he and four other writers (including Bergman) rewrote the script with the intent of retaining the original concept, while creating a parody of every western they could recall. And, as if on cue, Brooks and his producers continually fielded a slew of suggestions by the studio brass and their legal beagles. Brooks wanted Richard Pryor (who was part of the writing team) to play the sheriff. But Pryor’s well-known unreliability made the studio heads rotate like Linda Blair’s in The Exorcist. The studio suggested Flip Wilson and Brooks suggested where they could go. And on-and-on it continued throughout the entire production schedule. There were fights over language, inappropriate words, blatant sexual overtones, prejudicial intonations, and even conflict over how loud the bean eating cowboys should fart.

What happened to carte blanch? It appeared to be rescinded when the powers that be discovered how irreverent the picture was to the powers that be. The picture does, in fact, target a variety of stereotypes through its (intentionally) offensive humor and sight gags. However, the predominant goal was to target prejudice. In a special features interview, Harvey Korman claimed the script dealt with “the whole absurdities of what prejudices are all about.” And in the same feature Brooks states the following:

The engine that drove Blazing Saddles was hatred of the Black.

It was race prejudice. Without that the movie would not have

had nearly the significance to force the dynamism, and the

stakes that were contained in the film.

 

And similar prejudicial absurdities were targeted with the absurd humor in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The British ensemble utilized the disparity and conflict evident in a monarchy confronted with a more parliamentary or democratic view. And, similarly to Blazing Saddles, which parodied the westward movement that expanded America, Monty Python selected medieval times and the mythological foundation of Britain through King Arthur’s Camelot. Then add a generous supply of irreverent religious humor as the third driving force to move the story forward at the blistering speed of a human trot and the film is encapsulated.

I did find it odd that they only blasted Catholicism (a favorite of the Irish). There were no blatant attacks on the Church of England; after all, it was a counterculture inspired production. I would like to know if they met with a multitude of studio suggestions like Brooks had to deal with.

Patti Smith, on the other hand, though a counterculture icon, is found wanting in my opinion. Yes, she used her forked-tongue to poke holes in various establishment mainstays over the years, but the same tongue betrays her. Her ranting and raving at the establishment, and especially toward faith, was merely an outlet for her rebellious nature. She nurtured her personal demons born out of anger, and carried on her personal war because she loved it; not for any altruistic intention to help others by changing the status quo. Her addictive personality appeared to crave the endorphin rush of rebellion, just as much as her confessed addictive need for sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll.

Lack of space hinders going into all the anger issues, but let’s deal with one of her predominant themes, God and faith. It is a theme seen in well-over half her material. And we’re given a glimpse into the origin of this anger in several poems; but predominantly in “Grant.”

but for my father the irrevocable alien, there is nowhere to go,

unaccepted by the real world and betrayed by the divine, he has

plunged into a state of atrophy. a trophy a stationary prize. it is

the junky becoming the junk the dreamer the dream. it is the

masterpiece himself. a / trophy. (p.86-89)

The above poem and others show Smith’s hallowed love for her father: daddy’s little girl. She proclaims her father, in the arms of God, is “the golden one” (p.88), and “truly” believes that “there is no one closer to god then my father” (p.89), and she needs “no other source but the word of my guardian” (p.87). And when he hurts she hurts. His betrayers are her betrayers.

Sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll tore away Smith’s inhibitions. She found her voice, a voice she can use to vent her anger at the “divine” that betrayed the father she professes to be god-like. And the anger filled the void of lost faith. But the god of anger, similar to her other addiction gods, is never satisfied. She must howl like Ginsberg in an effort to appease, like we see in “Oath” (p.7):

Jesus died for somebody’s sins

but not mine

So Christ

I’m giving you the good-bye

firing you tonight

I can make my own light shine

 

And Smith claims to want responsibility for herself.

 

my sins my own

Adam placed no hex on me

I embrace Eve

and take full responsibility

for every pocket I have picked

But simple common sense sees through the mask. Killing off the god of her father (whom she compared him to) while equally venting against the rest of the establishment (in other works); including society’s laws, is a self-professed act to be “free.” And freedom defined by the counterculture icon includes freedom from morality. In other words, if there is no god, no laws, and no morality they are freeing themselves from responsibility. They are not embracing responsibility, and neither is Smith. There is no personal responsibility in anti-heroism. In The Denial of Death, psychologist Ernest Becker states the following:

We are living a crisis of heroism that reaches into every aspect

of our social life: the dropouts of university heroism, of business

and career heroism, of political-action heroism; the rise of anti-

heroes, those who would be heroic each in his own way or like

Charles Manson with his special “family,” those whose tormented

heroics lash out at the system that itself has ceased represent a

greed heroism” (p.6-7).

 

The heroism spoken of in the above passage is the heroics relating to self in each individual mind. It is the reason individuals like Manson see themselves in a positive light, no matter how the rest of the world views them. And it is no different for those of the counterculture who revel in the rebellion and anger, seeking personal freedom (without God, laws, or morality), with no personal responsibility.

The counterculture seen in Blazing Saddles and Monty Python and the Holy Grail are simple acts of spotlighting deficiencies in the status quo that need to be addressed and changed. Neither film advocates the extreme counterculture view angrily expressed throughout Smith’s work. It is a major difference that cannot be overlooked or underestimated. Countercultural activism for change, like the films or marching to the White House, is commendable. Counterculture that thrives on rebellion, revolt, anarchy, or in Smith’s case, accepts and proudly claims freedom of responsibility for various criminal acts against others is pure unadulterated bullshit. And I wave my hat at it like Slim Pickens in the cowboy campfire scene, only to realize that this stink is solid and it is here to stay.