An open letter to Kara regarding her open letter to Dave

[Lisa M Peppan]

Dear Kara

I almost hit the delete key after reading your first paragraph, but I
read on despite the tone of your piece.

> 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.

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.

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

I'm surprised that a journalist would be so quick to condemn without
first doing research on the subject.  In this case, Mr Cleven.

> 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.

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.

> And while I know this is an aside from the Chinook
> jargon, Mr. Cleven threw around some terms that
> need to be addressed.

As this was an open letter, let's do that.

> Mike 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."

Kara wrote:
> 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.

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.

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."

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.

> 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."

Kara wrote:

> There is little more common a usage than appears in
> newspaper sports pages.

The street.  Real life.  Governments and universities do legislate words
in and out of existence, but people still use them.

> 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."

Ms. Briggs wrote:
> 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.

I read and reread both of these paragraphs and it looks to me like you
both said the same thing.

> 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.

It is no longer used conversationally in the media but there are still
areas in which it is still used daily in conversation.

> 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."

She wrote:
> 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.

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.

>    A racist culture employs racist language. A culture,
> which is trying to rid itself of its outward vestiges of
> racism, works to shed it.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

And perspective is an ever changing thing.  Yes, things have improved
over the last 30 years.

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?

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!"

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.

Things do change.  Not always fast, but they do change.

> 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.

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.

> But, in fact, they did really mean to kidnap people
> from Africa and enslave them like cattle.

Point in fact: the first traders of African peoples *were* African
peoples.

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.

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.

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.

> They really did mean to have separate drinking
> fountains.

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.

> And United States federal policy through the
>19th Century really did mean to annhilate Native
> Americans.

Blankets infected with the smallpox virus was a favorite method.

> 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.)

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.

> It was personal, and still is.

Now this is where it gets tricky.

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.

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.

> 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..

With the text you have chosen to quote, no he doesn't.

> 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.

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.

> And some other people don't like that.

Nope.  Tis the nature of the Human Being.  Some will disagree simply to
disagree.

> 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???

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.

Where is that journalistic curiosity; why does he say this and why does
he say it like that?

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.


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.

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.

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?

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.

And sometime you just have to agree to disagree.

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.

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."

That's just the way I am.

Lisa Peppan
Edmonds, WA, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/chinook/attachments/20010208/f385632c/attachment.htm>