an open letter to Dave

[Kara Briggs]

Dear Dave, I find you to be a gracious and informative host.
But I am puzzled by the tolerance of you and other people on this list serve
of Mr. Cleven's comments. I guess you've been through this before with him.

I have to wonder why it is that in this conversation which has been
non-judgemental suddenly Mr. Cleven takes a pot shot at me by name. It is
particularly stange because everyone else was just sharing information.

Of course, in my work as a journalist and a student of history, I am not
surprised.

But I have to wonder what makes the observations of a person who claims to
only be interested in historical accuracy more appropriate than the comments
of Native Americans, or maybe only this one Native American, who is
knowledgeable about language, history and contempory issues. And while I
know this is an aside from the Chinook jargon, Mr. Cleven threw around some
terms that need to be addressed.

He wrote:
"Most of the rest of you are linguists and native politicos; I'm more of an
historian and REALLY don't like it when someone tries to rewrite history to
suit modern
prejudices and perceptions....OK, OK, Siwash is derogatory now (unless
pronounced Sawash and if
you're in Grand Ronde) but don't go pretending that all historical
uses/users of it were derisive and negative.  This is plainly UNTRUE and
"political correctness isn't
reason enough to forgive" such a refabrication of history."

As to the complaints that my comments were politically motivated, I suggest
that the United States Federal Trademark Law was not written to change the
Redskins name. It was written a century ago as a standard by which all
trademarks should be judged.
That three judges in the commission in 1999 found this name to violate
trademark law seems to me to be an objective standard. And as long as you
brought up the term revisionism, maybe you should see if it fits you.

He also wrote:
"North Americans.  Governments and university faculties can legislate words
in and out of existence all the want; but it's actual usage and utility that
determines a
word's existence as well as its meaning, as Safire could tell you."

There is little more common a usage than appears in newspaper sports pages.
At a meeting of newspaper publishers in Florida last week, I found that the
St. Cloud, Minn., newspaper and the Portland, Maine, newspaper had recently
both stopped printing the teams names like Redskins. I also brought my
"Change the name" buttons and forgot that I had them in a clear plastic bag
at my feet. At a break, the media exectutives came up to me and asked
for buttons. So however you feel about it, the times, they-are-a-changing.

Mr. Cleaven also wrote:
"William Safire would have a field day with the mutation of this word's
meaning by region and era; ignoring or dismissing this history and the
historical evolution of this
word and others like it is REVISIONISM pure and simple."

As for Mr. Safire, I think you would find him a journalist concerned with
accuracy not only in language, but also in social meaning of words. I also
think that Bill, if he delved into the gritty language of race in the
Americas, might discuss the evolution of the word nigger.
Forty years ago we may have spent time on this list serve, if such
technology had existed, debating the use of that word.
But, now, because the people, for whom it is a racial epithet, have led a
revolution in American thinking -- winning civil rights for themselves and
others and educating an unwilling country that slurs are not acceptable --
we have stopped using this word conversationally.

He also wrote:
"How can you say that without considering the whole history of the word,
including the FACT that it was widely used
_in_some_areas_ by native people themselves."

Real linguists, and for that matter real historians, understand that
language is part and parcel of culture. I've heard many tribal elders --
from the Pacific Ocean to the St. Lawrence River, and from Lake Superior to
the Everglade  -- around the talking circles and drinking coffee
at powwows remark that the life of the culture is in the language.
   A racist culture employs racist language. A culture, which is trying to
rid itself of its outward vestiges of racism, works to shed it.
   The continued use of words like squaw, redskin and savage remind me of
the way that the American South clings to the Confederate flag and
celebrates images of slavery.

He further writes:
"Be wary of overcompensating for the vices and resentments of the past lest
you create vices and resentments for the future."

In my conversations with leading, and actual, historians on Native American
issues such as Peter Iverson, a white professor at the University of
Arizona, I have
heard the clear acknowledgements of the racist intents of words, laws and
Manifest Destiny.
Iverson has used his historical research to tell the stories of Native
Americans often for the first time ever from their own perspectives.  The
stories are not revisions, as Mr. Cleven remarks.
   They've been held in communities and families since they happened. But
the publishers of books and the teachers of history, who have been primarily
white, have until the last 30 years failed to see that history has more than
perspective.

More from Mr. Cleaven:
"That's a pretty absolutist statement, Kara."

It's True: I am absolutely opposed to racism in all its dimensions. 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.

But as for my personal e-mail, I am intolerant of people who soft pedal the
racist intent as merely colorful chapters of an idyllic history. Sometimes
people are tempted to say that certain racist chapers of our history were
not really meant or that people knew better. But, in fact, they did really
mean to kidnap people from Africa and enslave them like cattle. They really
did mean to have seperate drinking fountains. And United States federal
policy through the 19th Century really did mean to annhilate Native
Americans.In the 1970s the church and the government really did mean to
sterilize Native American teenage girls during recess at school.(I have
references if you want to look farther into this.)
It was personal, and still is.


More still:
"I sympathize with the Warm Springs resistance to use of the S-word to mean
"Indian" or "native person" in the Jargon, since in their community (as in
others) the word
has become clearly derisive in context with many unpleasant memories..."

There..there, Mr. Cleaven says to the Native peoples on this list serv -- it
was just a bad dream and get over it..

The only difference is now Native peoples have their own voices and
authority to tell their own stories.And history is getting an accurate
telling for the first time including women, people of color and Native
Americans.

And some other people don't like that.

Really, this is about you readers, why do you all tolerate his bull dogging
of people, his historic and racial chauvinism and his short sighted
opinions???
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com