<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 topMargin=0 rightMargin=3>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Dear Kara</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I almost hit the delete key after reading your first paragraph, but I read
on despite the tone of your piece.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Dear Dave, I find you to be a gracious and </DIV>
<DIV>> informative host. But I am puzzled by the tolerance </DIV>
<DIV>> of you and other people on this list serve of Mr. </DIV>
<DIV>> Cleven's comments. I guess you've been through </DIV>
<DIV>> this before with him.<BR> <BR>> I have to wonder why it
is that in this conversation </DIV>
<DIV>> which has been non-judgemental suddenly Mr. </DIV>
<DIV>> Cleven takes a pot shot at me by name. It is<BR>>
particularly stange because everyone else was </DIV>
<DIV>> just sharing information.<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>As was Mike. Anyone who has been on this list for any length of time
is well aware of the debate style posts he makes. Yes, there are times
when he gets swept up in the heat of the moment, but unless he has been attacked
out right, what can and has been perceived as aggression is more a passion
for making certain ALL aspects of the topic are recognized.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> Of course, in my work as a journalist and a student </DIV>
<DIV>> of history, I am not surprised.<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm surprised that a journalist would be so quick to condemn without first
doing research on the subject. In this case, Mr Cleven.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> But I have to wonder what makes the observations </DIV>
<DIV>> of a person who claims to only be interested in </DIV>
<DIV>> historical accuracy more appropriate than the <BR>> comments of
Native Americans, or maybe only this </DIV>
<DIV>> one Native American, who is knowledgeable about </DIV>
<DIV>> language, history and contempory issues. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Actually, his sources are First Nations in the BC Interior rather than
Native American, so perhaps this is where most of the confusion
originates. From near as I can figure from your letter, you're read much
-- you said you were a student of history -- but the by the very nature of the
written word, the full import of them can not fully be realized with out
experiencing the events or hearing one who has speak of them. Mike has
done a great deal of the latter.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> And while I know this is an aside from the Chinook </DIV>
<DIV>> jargon, Mr. Cleven threw around some terms that </DIV>
<DIV>> need to be addressed.<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>As this was an open letter, let's do that.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> Mike wrote:<BR>> "Most of the rest of you are linguists and
native politicos; </DIV>
<DIV>> I'm more of an historian and REALLY don't like it when </DIV>
<DIV>> someone tries to rewrite history to suit modern prejudices </DIV>
<DIV>> and perceptions....OK, OK, Siwash is derogatory now <BR>>
(unless pronounced Sawash and if you're in Grand Ronde) </DIV>
<DIV>> but don't go pretending that all historical uses/users of it were
</DIV>
<DIV>> derisive and negative. This is plainly UNTRUE and
"political </DIV>
<DIV>> correctness isn't reason enough to forgive" such a </DIV>
<DIV>> refabrication of history."<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>Kara wrote: <BR>> As to the complaints that my comments were politically
</DIV>
<DIV>> motivated, I suggest that the United States Federal </DIV>
<DIV>> Trademark Law was not written to change the Redskins </DIV>
<DIV>> name. It was written a century ago as a standard by which <BR>> all
trademarks should be judged. That three judges in the </DIV>
<DIV>> commission in 1999 found this name to violate trademark </DIV>
<DIV>> law seems to me to be an objective standard. And as long </DIV>
<DIV>> as you brought up the term revisionism, maybe you should </DIV>
<DIV>> see if it fits you.<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>I saw no complaints. I saw a fairly accurate assessment of this
list. There are many people here with an interest in language, as well as
those interested in Native politics. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And describing the 'Skin's names change as simply a "violation of
trademark law", well-- there was so very much more involved. It makes it
sound like some Corporation said, "Hey, that's our name," and the USFTL
said, "Oh, okay. Cool."</DIV>
<DIV><BR>It doesn't touch on the Real People and it doesn't even come *close* to
touching the emotional issues behind why the Name "Redskins" and their mascot
AND other things related to being a 'Skins fan are offensive to some.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> He also wrote:<BR>> "North Americans. Governments and
university </DIV>
<DIV>> faculties can legislate words in and out of existence </DIV>
<DIV>> all the want; but it's actual usage and utility that </DIV>
<DIV>> determines a word's existence as well as its meaning, </DIV>
<DIV>> as Safire could tell you."<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Kara wrote: </DIV>
<DIV><BR>> There is little more common a usage than appears in </DIV>
<DIV>> newspaper sports pages.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The street. Real life. Governments and universities do
legislate words in and out of existence, but people still use them.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>> Mr. Cleaven also wrote:<BR>> "William Safire would have a field day
with the </DIV>
<DIV>> mutation of this word's meaning by region and </DIV>
<DIV>> era; ignoring or dismissing this history and the<BR>>
historical evolution of this word and others like </DIV>
<DIV>> it is REVISIONISM pure and simple."<BR> <BR>Ms. Briggs wrote:
</DIV>
<DIV>> As for Mr. Safire, I think you would find him a </DIV>
<DIV>> journalist concerned with accuracy not only in </DIV>
<DIV>> language, but also in social meaning of words. <BR>
<DIV>> I also think that Bill, if he delved into the gritty </DIV>
<DIV>> language of race in the Americas, might discuss </DIV>
<DIV>> the evolution of the word nigger.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I read and reread both of these paragraphs and it looks to me like you both
said the same thing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Forty years ago we may have spent time on this </DIV>
<DIV>> list serve, if such technology had existed, debating </DIV>
<DIV>> the use of that word. But, now, because the people, </DIV>
<DIV>> for whom it is a racial epithet, have led a revolution </DIV>
<DIV>> in American thinking -- winning civil rights for themselves
</DIV>
<DIV>> and others and educating an unwilling country that slurs </DIV>
<DIV>> are not acceptable -- we have stopped using this word </DIV>
<DIV>> conversationally.<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>It is no longer used conversationally in the media but there are still
areas in which it is still used daily in conversation.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> He also wrote:<BR>> "How can you say that without considering
the </DIV>
<DIV>> whole history of the word, including the FACT </DIV>
<DIV>> that it was widely used _in_some_areas_ by </DIV>
<DIV>> native people themselves."<BR></DIV>
<DIV>She wrote: <BR>> Real linguists, and for that matter real
historians, </DIV>
<DIV>> understand that language is part and parcel of culture.
</DIV>
<DIV>> I've heard many tribal elders -- from the Pacific Ocean
</DIV>
<DIV>> to the St. Lawrence River, and from Lake Superior to<BR>> the
Everglade -- around the talking circles and drinking </DIV>
<DIV>> coffee at powwows remark that the life of the culture is </DIV>
<DIV>> in the language.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, it encompassed the whole of the time in which it is spoken.
Hopes, fears, prejudices. Where do you suppose the term "Gyp"as in "He
gypped me out of that car." or the more colorful, "Yeah, he jewed the price
down." There are many people today who don't know that every time they use
either phrase they are insulting Travelers aka Gypsies and/or those of the
Jewish faith.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> A racist culture employs racist language. A culture,
</DIV>
<DIV>> which is trying to rid itself of its outward vestiges of </DIV>
<DIV>> racism, works to shed it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And this shedding process can be long and painful. Though it is a
gross simplification, you have one side completely in the dark about why the
other side is getting their knickers in such a twist over "just"a word, while
the other side wrestles with the emotional baggage attached irrevocably to
*that* word.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I can not speak for the nigger, I can speak for the Siwash, though it isn't
a direct personal experience. The mere mention of the word brought my
father instantly to a fighting outrage, the reason for which were outlined in a
post I made not too long ago. Now since that post, Mike did his job as
Devil's Advocate, taking the point of view that the word itself wasn't bad but
the emotional baggage, though effecting only a portion of the populous, was what
the real problem was. And he's right about that. This is the crux of
the problem. In dealing with real people in real life situations, emotion
*will* be involved.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> He further writes:<BR>> "Be wary of overcompensating for the
vices and </DIV>
<DIV>> resentments of the past lest you create vices and </DIV>
<DIV>> resentments for the future."<BR> <BR>> In my conversations
with leading, and actual, </DIV>
<DIV>> historians on Native American issues such as </DIV>
<DIV>> Peter Iverson, a white professor at the University <BR>> of
Arizona, I have heard the clear acknowledgements </DIV>
<DIV>> of the racist intents of words, laws and Manifest
Destiny.<BR>> Iverson has used his historical research to tell the stories
</DIV>
<DIV>> of Native Americans often for the first time ever from their
</DIV>
<DIV>> own perspectives. <BR>> The stories are not revisions, as Mr.
Cleven remarks.<BR>> They've been held in communities and families since they
<BR>> happened. But the publishers of books and the teachers </DIV>
<DIV>> of history, who have been primarily white, have until the last
</DIV>
<DIV>> 30 years failed to see that history has more than<BR>>
perspective.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Do be aware that it is not uncommon for elders to share stories
couched in terms they think the interviewer wants to hear. Among some,
there still exists a deep and abiding distrust of *any* outsider. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And perspective is an ever changing thing. Yes, things have improved
over the last 30 years. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In the early 70s, the Shoreline Public Schools, located just north of
Seattle, in Washington state, implemented a progressive and
controversial educational program in which a diversity of ethnic history
classes were made available to high school students, giving the students carte
blanche to choose the class of their choice. There was African American
Studies, Asian History, Native American Studies, and a couple others.
I remember these three because these three caught the most flack.
However, when the dust settled, NAS was the only class cancelled.
Why? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The majority of the parents didn't want their children to be taught the
"wrong history". This pronouncement came down shortly after our unit
on George Armstrong Custer and what happened at the Greasy Grass. Parents
were outraged: I heard one father remark, "General George Armstrong Custer
is an American Hero, for God Sake!" </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, many schools do teach that when old GA Custer did his thing at Little
Big Horn aka the Greasy Grass, he was knowingly disobeying orders, and forensic
studies have revealed that many of Custer's men died by their own hands.
Some parents may not be comfortable with it but, hey, that's what
happened.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Things do change. Not always fast, but they do change.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> More from Mr. Cleaven:<BR>> "That's a pretty absolutist
statement, Kara."<BR> <BR>> It's True: I am absolutely opposed to racism
in all its dimensions. <BR>> I wonder how many so-called historians can stand
up and demonstrate that same stand. I spend a lot of time
holding the hands of media executives and journalists as they come to an
understanding of why multi-cultural respect blesses us
all.<BR> <BR>> But as for my personal e-mail, I am intolerant of </DIV>
<DIV>> people who soft pedal the racist intent as merely </DIV>
<DIV>> colorful chapters of an idyllic history. <BR>>
Sometimes people are tempted to say that certain </DIV>
<DIV>> racist chapers of our history were not really meant </DIV>
<DIV>> or that people knew better. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Sometimes? My dear, the One Truth in the World is that history is
written by the victor. Racism - fear of the different -- is as
old as mankind. Doesn't make it any more right, doesn't matter that during
the time period in which these horrid things took place that Popular
Opinion made them okay. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> But, in fact, they did really mean to kidnap people </DIV>
<DIV>> from Africa and enslave them like cattle. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Point in fact: the first traders of African peoples *were* African
peoples.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Point in fact: the Five Civilized Tribes -- Cherokee, Chickasaw. Choctaw,
Creek, and Seminole -- in order to fit in with the White Man's world were also
slave holders. When slavery was abolished, they freed their slaves and in
many cases adopted them into the tribe.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Point in fact: as recently as the first few decades of the early 1800s,
peoples of the northern Pacific Coast kept slaves, taken from other peoples of
the northern Pacific Coast that they had gone to war with. Some they sold
for profit, some they ransomed, some they killed outright to prove the greatness
of their wealth.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>These facts do not make it right, how ever it is what happened and for all
these people, when they were doing this, it was -- by Popular Opinion, the Way
Things Were Done.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> They really did mean to have separate drinking </DIV>
<DIV>> fountains. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, unless you were White, you were not a Human Being and Human Beings and
Animals didn't drink from the same source. it wasn't true, but it was the
way thing were.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> And United States federal policy through the </DIV>
<DIV>>19th Century really did mean to annhilate Native </DIV>
<DIV>> Americans. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Blankets infected with the smallpox virus was a favorite method.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> In the 1970s the church and the government </DIV>
<DIV>> really did mean to sterilize Native American </DIV>
<DIV>> teenage girls during recess at school. (I have
</DIV>
<DIV>> references if you want to look farther into this.) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And in the 1970s, they knew it wasn't Leonard Pelltier's rifle, but because
he was a high profile individual they used him as an object lesson; nothing
worse than an uppity Indian.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> It was personal, and still is.<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>Now this is where it gets tricky.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>None of these things, from an educated and logical point of view,
were right. During their time, there were people who strongly disagreed
with them, however it was Public Opinion that allowed them to
continue. In the past, unless you were from a moneyed and/or influential
family, standing up on a soap box to voice views contrary to Public
Opinion got you killed; many died for their beliefs -- many more than we will
ever have names for. That's the way it was. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Each school history book paints history a little different, according to
the ambient Public Opinion during the time in which the revision is made.
What needs to be done is to present what happened, establish the political
atmosphere of the time and then discuss why it was wrong. Walk all the way
around the subject, look at it from every possible angle. Why did
something that was so obviously wrong go on for so long? How many lives
were lost righting the wrong? How can we keep this from happening
again? We can not loose sight of the past -- a wise man once
said that to forget history is to relive it. </DIV>
<DIV><BR>> More still:<BR>> "I sympathize with the Warm Springs resistance
to </DIV>
<DIV>> use of the S-word to mean "Indian" or "native person" </DIV>
<DIV>> in the Jargon, since in their community (as in others) </DIV>
<DIV>> the word has become clearly derisive in context with </DIV>
<DIV>> many unpleasant memories..."<BR> <BR>> There..there, Mr.
Cleaven says to the Native peoples </DIV>
<DIV>> on this list serv -- it was just a bad dream and get over </DIV>
<DIV>> it..<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>With the text you have chosen to quote, no he doesn't. </DIV>
<DIV><BR>> The only difference is now Native peoples have their </DIV>
<DIV>> own voices and authority to tell their own stories.And </DIV>
<DIV>> history is getting an accurate telling for the first time </DIV>
<DIV>> including women, people of color and Native<BR>>
Americans.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>They have had the authority to tell their stories in their own voices for
some time. You make it sound like they were finally given permission to
speak the truth. Where this may be true in the media, real life is a very
different thing. The biggest difference is now this sort of information is
what sells papers, magazines, and books, and as long as the media can make a
profit from it, it will continue. It's up to real people to make the
changes, and real people can't make changes without out seeing the whole of
it. To see the whole of it, one must think -- really think -- and the one
thing Mike Cleven does best is getting people to think about
things. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> And some other people don't like that.<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>Nope. Tis the nature of the Human Being. Some will disagree
simply to disagree.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> Really, this is about you readers, why do you all tolerate </DIV>
<DIV>> his bull dogging of people, his historic and racial </DIV>
<DIV>> chauvinism and his short sighted opinions???<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Because I know Mike Cleven. I met him the first time while doing an
Internet search for the Chinook Trade Jargon -- he has a wonderful web site
devoted to the Chinook Trade Jargon -- and since we have become friends on and
off the list. Through Mike I have learned more about a great many things
I'd have never otherwise had the opportunity to learn. Mike took me
on a tour of the are in which he grew up and had you seen the reception he
received from the different Native peoples, you would know how laughable your
final statement is. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Where is that journalistic curiosity; why does he say this and why does he
say it like that? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike can be bombastic -- he is in fact quite good at it -- but he has a
genuine passion for language and history, and when the two are combined, the
results can quite often lead to misunderstand and misinterpretation.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Then again, in cyber-space, with the written word, one can neither
see the body language used or hear the voice inflection . . . hand
gestures. All one can see is words; how many different ways can "May I
help you?" be said? This why I gave your message a second and third
read. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The first time I read it, you came across as many people I've know whose
only experience with adversity was through the written word, read within the
safe confines of university walls -- or at the best, spent a few days here and
there with The Disadvantaged as part of a thesis. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You are obviously an educated woman. And though the second and third
reads did take away the impression of a whiny, young college student with little
experience in the Real World, it still feels as though you carry a large
chip on your shoulder -- perhaps you knew someone whose speech patterns
were similar to Mike's, thus Mike's words are run through your own
person emotion filter and you hear that voice from the past, rather than Mike
Cleven. Or is it even simpler than that? Mike Cleven is white and
he's a man, therefore he is wrong. Is *that* right -- even coming from a
mixed-blood woman?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion. You are a human
being who lives in the United States of America, and you have that right.
The list members who live in Canada and other parts of the World are also
entitled to their opinions. Every human being is entitled to his/her
opinion. Tolerant people listen to these opinions and then seek to
understand and educate if necessary. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And sometime you just have to agree to disagree.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike Cleven is entitled to his opinion. Mike Cleven grew up in an
area with a high percentage of First Nations peoples and I have seen first
hand the warmth with which he is greeted by these people, even after having been
away for some time. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Were he the person you say he is, I wouldn't have risked the List Owners
wrath, nor the very real possibility of getting my own butt tossed off the
list. Had you sent this to Dave via private e-mail, I wouldn't have felt
compelled to comment. I probably should have sent my rebuttal to Dave via
private e-mail, but when I see a friend wronged publicly, I do not sit back and
think, "Ah, well, it's not my problem." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That's just the way I am.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Lisa Peppan<BR>Edmonds, WA, USA</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>