Indians & Other Things

[Matthew Ward]

Typical one-sided, knee-jerk, finger-pointing, simplistic rhetoric.

Unfortunately, in my experience, this point of view is not uncommon,
particularly among the political right.  The most amusingly stupid point
made is that "Native Americans were not nice to each other."  Well,
surprise, they are human beings, and human beings are known for
sometimes doing nasty and brutal things to each other.  If one takes
this argument to its logical extention, you could say "Well, the Jews in
Europe sometimes were not nice to each other, so who can blame Hitler?"

In my experience, as a white American, this "they were not nice to each
other" point of view is surprisingly popular among the more boneheaded
whites.  I can remember, going home to rural Puget Sound, and hearing a
white, Norwegian-American fisherman (my mother's family is also
comprised of white, Norwegian-Americans) talking about how mean Native
Americans were to each other, implying, I guess, that no-one should
bother to be nice to them.  My way of countering it was saying "Hey,
look at OUR ancestors!  They were some of the most violent and brutal
people in history.  Do you hear Indians walking around talking about how
terrible those Vikings were?"

So, how to counter this particular point of view?  Flood the newspaper
with letters.  Don't act particularly outraged, don't question the
author's right to be an idiot, but use logic and facts to explain
clearly why his point of view is nonsense.  In particular, point out the
WORLDWIDE movement (not at all confined to liberal Democratic
Americans!) to recognize, compensate, and otherwise show proper respect
for native peoples.  You might also point out that the author has every
right to blather from, say, a barroom stool, but that does not mean that
newspapers are compelled to print trash.  But, remember, the more
rational WE sound, the more that people like this author will sound like
fanatical, ignorant morons.  We have history on our side, these people
do not.


Hishinlai' wrote:

>Is this for real? or am I over-reacting? If so, as a teacher, could you
>imagine what he says to his students? Hishinlai'
>
>By: Tom McLaughlin (printed in The Conway Daily Sun, Thursday, October 30,=
>2003)
>
>INDIANS AND CASINOS
>
>Let's see if I understand this. They're legal for everybody in Nevada
>and in New Jersey, but only Indians can open casinos in any other state.
>What's up with that? Is it some form of Affirmative Action? Maine voters
>must decide next week whether to allow Maine's Indians to open one here and=
>the airways are full of ads trying to influence Maine voters on Question 3.=
>
>Driving toward Portland, I see sign after sign imploring me "Vote Yes" or
>"Vote No." Commercials on one side proclaim why a casino will be good for
>Maine and the other side counters that it would not be good. Not one of the=
>ads I've seen addresses the question of why only Indians can open a casino,=
>or why they would even want to. We can only assume it's just for the money.=
>
>[INDIANS WERE FULLY AS NASTY TO ONE ANOTHER AS EUROPEANS EVER WERE TO
>THEM. THEY WEREN'T ALL TH E PEACE- LOVING TREE- HUGGERS DISNEY MOVIES
>PORTRAY THEM TO BE.]
>
>Every American has heard the story of how Indians were conquered and
>robbed of their land by settlers from Europe. Less often told are stories
>of how, before Europeans came to the Americas, Indian tribes had been
>conquering and robbing each other constantly in the same ways. European
>"tribes", if you will, could not out do Indian tribes for cruelty and
>savagery. Indians were fully as nasty to one another as Europeans were to
>them. They weren't all the peace-loving tree-huggers Disney movies portray
>them to be. The story of who ended up controlling most of North and South
>America is one of survival of the fittest. Europeans were simply stronger
>than the strongest Indian tribes. Aside from that difference, the only
>other distinction is that many descendants of Europeans who conquered
>Indians have since been feeling guilty about what their remote ancestors
>did. I've never read about any remorse to the Aztecs, the Incas, the
>Comanche, the Iroquois, the Pequakets or any of their descendants felt
>about massacring or torturing surrounding tribes and robbing them of their
>lands. Do these formerly-dominant tribes have any reparations or giveback
>programs that I'm unaware of? Please inform me if they do. Meanwhile, I'll
>just assume that it's only modern, white, liberal Democrats who are so
>wracked by guilt over the sins of their ancestors that they wish to force
>the rest of us to make amends whether we want to or not.
>
>Indians have ben exempt from some fish and game laws in several
>states, but I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps they might be inclined to go
>back to a hunting and gathering way of life if they could take deer and
>trout out of season. It doesn't seem very likely though that they'll going
>to Shaw's and Hannaford's any time soon. As a minority group, they have
>among the highest rates of alcoholism and suicide in the country. That's
>true at least for the ones who continue to live apart from mainstream
>American society on reservations and nurse their victimhood. This, of
>course, plays right into Democrat party politics. Victim groups have become=
>the party base during the last few decades and it should come as no
>surprise that outgoing President Clinton granted federal recognition to
>several obscure Indian tribes that would then be able to apply for casino
>licenses. Media coverage of these last-minute deals was thin because
>attention was focused on Clinton's selling of presidential pardons and of
>him and Hillary stealing furniture from the White House.
>
>When I first moved to Maine back in the 70's, realtors told me that
>people purchasing property in many parts of the state might not be able to
>get clear title because of the Indian Land Claims case, which was pending
>in the federal courts. Because Congress didn't approve a treaty negotiated
>back in the 1790's, various tribes claimed they still owned vast tracts of
>land in the state. It was eventually settled with the Indians receiving a
>combination of millions in cash and several thousand acres of land. Thirty
>years later, Indians still get a high rate of public assistance and this
>doesn't make sense to me. If tribes claim to be sovereign nations within
>the United States, how can they qualify for welfare programs? Should we
>consider it foreign aid? Are they simultaneously citizens of the Abenaki
>Nation and the United States? Whats going on? Would we let citizens of any
>other foreign nation open casinos in the United States that would be
>illegal for ordinary Americans to open?
>
>Until I get answers to these questions, I intend to vote no on Question
>3. (side note: Question 3 is "should gaming be allowed?")
>
>Tom McLaughlin is a teacher who lives in Lovell, Maine. He can be reached=
>
>at tommclaughlin at pivot.net
>
>
>