Native Americans and native Americans

So, why not get into a big discussion about the status of American Indians? I have had the flu for the last two weeks, so I haven't really felt like writing much since then. Here goes.....

In writing this, let's hope I can keep from wallowing in cliche (as I'm often prone to do) and put forward clear and precise principles. Here's the situation, as my white male priviliged self sees it:

A. There is considerable debate over what term should be used to correctly refer to persons principally descended from pre-columbian inhabitants of the contiguous United States. I shall herein use the term American Indian which I will explain why later.

B. The American Indian population itself disagrees over what course they should take to better the situations of their members.

C. Most United States citizens are indifferent to the plight of the American Indians and are grossly misinformed about the success that "Indian Casinos" have brought to the various tribes.

D. Many people seek federal recognition of their band or tribe by the federal government. This puts the cards in the hands of the marginalizer, because non American Indians get to decide who qualifies as an American Indian.

E. Conquered peoples either eventually integrate or revolt.


A. Christopher Columbus mistakenly thought he had reached La India when he hoped ashore at Isla San Salvador (possibly modern day Samana Cay of the Bahamas). He called the inhabitants "indios" and the name stuck....across all colonial languages. In the United States, "Indian" corrupted into "Injun" became a pejorative the same way that some people use "Mexican" today. The connotation of Indian went back and forth among people, but as time went by and the American Indians gradually disappeared from the population centers as they died out or were forced onto reservations, it lost some of its insulting punch. So much so that by the beginning to middle of the 19th Century, the culture began a shift toward a sort of quiet reverence for American Indian ways. The idea of the "noble savage" and other images worked their way into the American experience. Books such as The Last of the Mohicans (though not a true representation of American Indian behavior) evoked the laudable morality of American Indians and the idea of the noble savage Indian may have even been a reaction against the moral ambiguity of Indian removals and the accompanying excesses of Manifest Destiny. This noble savage idea continues on to this very day, look only to Lieutenant Worf of the Star Trek shows to see a modern fictional personification of this concept. This reverence is shown nowadays in works such as Dances With Wolves where we are shown a people at peace and at one with their environment, neighbors, etc. In order to historically examine these ideas we must try to seperate our conceptions based off of popular culture from historical fact.

No civilization is perfect. No culture is perfect. American Indians did less environmental damage to the land due to economic factors. Their populations were smaller and disease, malnutrition and warfare kept their populations small enough so that they did not overtax the resources they had....typically. The massive declines of the Mayan Empire can be attributed in part, to overharvesting of the forests and depletion of the soils. Other tribes were so blessed with abundant natural resources, such as the Cherokee, that their populations were capabale of great numbers. Nevertheless, warfare, cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, oppression of women, etc. existed in many American Indian cultures. To paint the 500 Nations as all similar in laws, customs, cultures, etc. is to do the same to the 100 nations of Europe. The Aztecs/Nahuatl were so hated by other tribes that these other tribes united voluntarily with the Spaniards in their conquest of Mexico City. Similarly, just as the nations of Europe have struggled to get along since time immemorial, so to did the tribes of the Americas. To be sure, there is much to admire in the practices of many American Indian tribes, but to show them as these perfect noble stewards of land, life, and liberty is simplistic. There had to have been a similar level of intrique in the lodges as their was in the European courts.

Given the vastness of cultures under the broad umbrella of "American Indian" how then do we come to terms with the correct terminology to use to describe them? A 1995 survery by the Census Bureau found that the majority of American Indians polled preferred the term American Indian to Native American. http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96arc/ivatuck.pdf

I am a native American, but I'm not Native American despite my Aunt Connie's assertion that there is a Cherokee somewhere in my fuel supply. I grew up in Cherokee County, Georgia, where the Trail of Tears started near where I grew up. I went to Etowah High School and toured the Etowah Indian Mounds with amazement and wonder as a child. I enjoy Enigma's "Return to Innocence." According to my now departed grandma, I "tan like an Indian." But I don't know what it means to be an American Indian.

Why use the term Native American? What benefit does it bring versus American Indian? We all know that Columbus got it wrong. Throughout the Americas there have been various methods for "eliminating" or "dealing with" the Indian "problem". In the tightly pruddish American Northeast, there was little mingling of the races, rather the British made gifts of poxscab laden blankets. In Latin America, due to the encomienda system, if an encomendero's serfs had more children, then he had more serfs, and the mestizo peoples of Latin America attest to this mixing of European and indigenous blood. By 1822, 25% of the population of Buenos Aires was of African descent, yet today the population of Argentina is almost entirely white. In Argentina, the blacks were granted freedom from slavery if they joined the army, where they were immediately made to fight against indian tribes such as the Patagonia and Araucanians, and put in the front lines as cannon fodder in the border wars with Paraguay and Chile. By using blacks to fight indians, Argentina sought to exterminate both of its minorities. Custer was on a mission of annihilation when he met his end. The "Battle" of Wounded Knee stands as a lasting shame on our ancestors. European peoples sought to annihilate American Indians, to remove them from the culture and the landscape forever. I wonder if the preference for the term American Indian among American Indians is a subconscious reaction against this modern attempt to remove "Indians" from the culture yet again? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but maybe not. American Indian names for sports mascots are appropriate where the name shows a reverence and respect for the entity being portrayed. The Atlanta Braves I believe is a show of respect just as the Boston Celtics is, though in years past, things such a Chief Noc-A-Homa might have been a little too mistrel. As I understand it the Seatlle newspaper refuses to use American Indian mascot names, preferring instead to say The Team from Washington, when reporting sports stories and this makes their articles incomprehensible whenever the Redskins play the Seahawks. I don't know how I would feel about the Washington Redskins were I an American Indian, but I find it odd that some groups agitate to get the Florida State Seminoles to change their mascot name when the very Seminole tribe has given their stamp of approval to the name. I also know that the proposed National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall chooses American Indian over Native American. Perhaps soon, due to the euphemism treadmill even Native American will fall out of favor as Amerindian has. I doubt anyone will ever be able to get the varying tribes and peoples to come to a consensus about how they prefer to refer to themselves. Given the awesome creativeness of some Plains Indians for naming their tribe members, perhaps they can come up with something as creative as Custer's scout White Man Runs Him. See photo

B. Some tribes prefer casinos and vice peddling (tax free liquor and cigarette stores) as ways to bring income to their nations, while others prefer to take the moral high ground. Some rely on government assistance, some refuse it. No matter what choice is made, many American Indians suffer in terrible poverty, addiction, and ignorance (which I define as a lack of education). I would advocate helping these Americans as Americans, just as we would anyone else in need. Historical injustices and half-fixes have been attempted. Perhaps instead of tackling the problem as "American Indians in Need" we should approach it as "Americans in Need." If we are always tacking that "other" onto the program, do we marginalize it from the onset? I don't know how to proceed nor how much really needs to be done. We are in the postmodern world now. American Indians are not going to and do not want to (I imagine) return to their Pre-columbian Stone Age Technology heritage; I would venture that they want to keep their cultural traditions as they integrate into mainstream America. We cannot erase the events of history, meaning that we are not going to hand over the continent to the remaining American Indians and emigrate en masse back to the Old World as the Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom advocates. American Indians need to figure out their own singular way of how to integrate into the world without losing that essence that defines them, the same way that I am an American of Welsh/Scotch/Irish descent. It's my ancestry, my tradition, and my heritage, but it's not what defines me. When asked to define what I am, I would have to say "American, Mormon, Southern (By the Grace of God). I feel I can do this without betraying my European heritage which farnkly makes up precious little of how I indentify myself. But then again, I am in the majority and I don't have people constantly pointing out and noticing my otherness. I am no stranger in a strange land. I do remember as an estadounidense in Costa Rica how I was the minority, but still my personal wealth (relative) allowed to function on the high side of the margin. There was an American Indian missionary serving with me named Mark Echohawk. I never met him, but from what I understand he was just as accepted as any other missionary both by the Costa Ricans and the Anglo missionaries (one would hope, among disciples of Christ). This path can only be determined by American Indians for themselves with help, as requested, from their fellow Americans.

C. Indian casinos do not improve the lives of the majority of American Indians. Some will claim only 1% benefit, while some small tribes have all become fabulously wealthy. Casinos benefit the tribes monetarily, but all vice comes at some expense. Also there is serious concern about the commodization of culture and the Disneyfication of the reservation at the hands of multinational companies that come in and develop land. The casino issue is a complicated one for the nation as we are in a phase of the cycle of casinos where we currently approve of them. This cycle comes and goes throughout time and if that cycle comes around again soon, what then becomes of the gaming industry and the tribes that practice it as a result? The casino issue is complicated for me as I am a Mormon who admittedly likes to gamble on occasion. I should be opposed to casinos, and I wouldn't gamble if there were no casinos. Is it better to ban casinos and let gambling become the province of mobsters, or to let the state (or tribe) regulate it? I think the social ills that stem from all large scale gambling outweigh any tax benefits they might bring to their communities. Pawn shops, drug abuse, suicide, alcoholism, and theft to fill pawnshops are the symptoms of gambling sickness. I oppose gambling, but I do gamble from time to time even though I know it goes against my religion. I admit my sin and my possible hypocrisy for condemning it while I occasionally enjoy it.

A larger problem related to casinos is that many Americans think that the casinos have (once again note the terminology) "solved the Indian problem."

D. Federal recognition of a tribe brings aid, status, and all kinds of problems. Defining membership in a tribe permits and/or cuts off access to federal benefits. My problem with 'federal recognition' is that it puts the classification for what and who constitutes an American Indian tribe in the hands of people who are not American Indians. The whole system seems flawed. Granted, people could claim 1/32,000th Madeituptoday tribe membership and seek to organize a reservation in downtown Salt Lake. If granted, they could then open a casino in one of the two states that prohibit all forms of gambling (including bets among friends, private wagers) and thereby undermine local government attempts to keep vice out of their community. But people could also make the same claim and not try to open a casino. The whole notion of the government deciding seems to limit the ability of American Indians to indentify themselves, which is an important part of embracing one's ancestry and heritage.

E. Conquered peoples have two eventual choices: integrate, or revolt. Throughout history conquered peoples have had to eventually choose between accepting the status quo or revolting. Two examples of Western history: Moorish Spain and Norman England.

In Spain the Moors shared different ethnicities, religion, and traditions than their subjects. The Moors were North African and Arabic Muslims. The Spanish were Ibero-Romano-Visigoth Christians. The Spanish never relented in their near 800 struggle called La Reconquista. They refused to assimilate. The Normans invaded Anglo-Saxon England (Angle-land) in 1066. They shared religion and some basic culture, and within 500 years were very integrated, one with the other. The struggles in Kosovo date back to battles that happened 400+ in history. People in Armenia bicker over battles that happened when Julius Caesar was alive. The Ainu in Japan have integrated into Japanese culture, first by force and then by choice. Revolution brings bloodshed, horror, and sometimes liberty. Conquered peoples must ask themselves how strong is their commitment to reversing previous wrongs. How long are their memories of past sins? How much heritage is "enough" to preserve as one culture integrates into another larger one?

There are no calls for the President of France to apologize to Queen Elizabeth for the Battle of Hastings. There are no calls for Queen Elizabeth to apologize to President Chirac for the Battle of Agincourt. The peoples that invaded the Americas, be they Cornish carpenters or Extremaduran pigherders are no longer represented in their posterity. Those men have all vanished, and with them their beliefs and ideologies. One would hope that were a new continent discovered today that the natives would be treated with respect and not invaded. No doubt that things were done horribly horribly wrong in the past, but we are no longer those same people. I am not.


I cannot help but think that if Antarctica had been discovered, uninhabited, at the equator, that our history books would be filled with tales of battles, colonies, revolutions, and all their trappings. The history of mankind is one of war and invasions. Sadly, la historia la escriben los ganadores.


Darlamay: I cannot find but one federally recognized tribe in Louisiana, the Chitimacha. Evidently, the delta region was not heavily populated pre-Columbus and what little there were died from disease and war when the French arrived.