Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
I had a very vague awareness of the work of Francis Jennings. I've just checked and a number of his books are available in the University of Ottawa library. I'll be down there early next week and will have a look. I have to say I don't know very much about the Iroquois, though I have been on a proposal to do some work for the Mohawk living not too far from here (we didn't get the job). Most of my work dealing with Canadian Native people has been in the far north, mostly the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I don't think that the Canadian Constitution refers to Indians as "wandering tribes". Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, gives the federal government authority over "Indians, and Lands reserved for Indians", whereas Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights, including rights under land claims agreements. In principle, one of the rights is the right of Native people to govern themselves as "First Nations". So, the idea is that while the federal government has general authority over them, and feduciary responsibilities to them, Native people can govern themselves within that. How this operates varies from group to group, depending on whether they still come under the Indian Act, whether they have signed and negotiated a land claims agreement, etc. Canadians typically don't get things right at first and do a lot of muddling, which usually means that the end results are compromises that can be lived with. That is the way we seem to have dealt with our Native people, at least during the past half century. And it's not been a case of us dealing with them, but more a case of them refusing the deal we tried to foist on them. One of the things that led to the recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights in our Constitution was an attempt by Pierre Trudeau, then Prime Minister, and Jean Chretien, then Minister of Indian Affairs, to get rid of the Indian Actand make Indiansordinary citizens like the rest of us. It led to a tremendous blow-up, with Native leaders arguing that the Indian Act, as bad and repressive asit was, was the only thing they had to define their distinctiveness. With the inclusion of their rights in the Constitution and the negotiation of self government arrangements and claims, the Indian Act is of decreasing relevance. It's still needed for many groups, but many are now out from under it. As I'm sure you know, I used "manifest destiny" as something that drove America westward and may still be driving American expansionism, not as something I favour. It turns me off too. Best, Ed Ed Weick - Original Message - From: Ray Evans Harrell To: Ed Weick ; futurework ; Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Interesting Ed, I believe I read it before since much seemed familiar. Well done. Are you aware of the works on the Iroquois by Francis Jennings? His three volume series on the business tradeof the Iroquois with the English, French, Dutch and New Sweden is a set of books that the Iroquois don't like much but which are the best researched books on the business and political relationships that I have seen to date. They have a Braudel type feel to them although much more specific. This shows very clearly the peer relationship that existed, until the English succeeded ingetting rid ofall of their European rivalsincluding France. This "peer" relationship showsthat the Indian Nations weretrue nations and not wandering tribes as defined in the Canadian Constitution. That the Iroquois Confederacy and the Cherokee Nation were as much a Nation-state with a different culture but a confederation that the American states still try to invoke in the term "State's Rights!" No American was ever more Messianic than the Iroquois according to Jennings. Ours was different but that is not the point. Much of what Benjamin Franklin liked and incorporated in his discussions with the American Founding Fathers, is Iroquois in origin and ended up in the American Constitution. They even have a form of dependent nation status in theIroquoisLeagueincluding a "melting pot" where the nations they conquered became members of the Iroquois Confederacy. I would think that you had run into that interesting little process during your travels amongst the Iroquois peoples. They are terrific people and they do have a kind of "mission" that is wonderful to observe. America seems to be moving towards the Canadian fiduciary model as they have removed the word Nation andreplaced it with "Tribes" and have strengthened the propaganda term invented by Andrew Jackson's Secretary of War Lewis Cass who was
Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
Ray, Your Irish analogy isn't very good. The Irish appeared to be more law-abiding than they should have been. My favorite story of the times concerns the cart loaded high with food on its way to the landlord's warehouse. The driver had to tell the starving people lining the road to attack his wagon and take the food - which, under his urging, is exactly what they did. Then, when he got to the warehouse, he complained about thugs who had attacked him and stolen the food. Sounds Irish, doesn't it? The famine was, of course, a land problem. It's always a land problem. One notes that in modern Ireland, a measure of land reform has taken place. A greater percentage of Irish own their own homes now than do the Brits (who desperately need land reform). Maximum ownership is apparently 5,000 acres of land. At the time of the famine, an absentee landholder could own a whole county - and did. Ordinary houses in Ireland are now larger than those of the Brits. With 17 times the population, to equal the pace of the Irish, the Brits would have to build 917,000 homes. They manage 170,000. (Back in the 50's the building rate was about 200,000 - maybe more.) Old buildings are not for tourist viewing. It's where the Brits live. Bertrand Russell said that all wars are really wars over land. He was right (including the contemporary possibility). And, as is mentioned in the article, the object of the Indian wars was land. However, it's always better to paint the other guy with horns and a forked tail and that is what was done. So the whites battled while the Indians massacred. Whoever owns the land owns the people (and also owns industry and by extension the politicians). Even Marx pointed out that the industrial revolution was financed by the landlords. You'll recall that 150 years later some 6,000 own two thirds of Britain and most of the Brits own nothing, or perhaps a postage stamp size under their home. Actually, the 60 million Brits live in 24 million dwellings (the post-war Labor government called them accommodation units). The 24 million dwellings sit on 4.4 million acres (7.7% of total Brit land). Three quarters of the population live on only 5.8% of the land, about 3.5 million acres (total 60 million). The land component of their accommodation unit will be from half to two thirds of the total cost. In other words, a third of the price of the house will go to building the house - two thirds will buy the right to build it. To drive the lesson home, the council tax (property tax) on an average home will be $935 a year, while the stately homes of the landowners receive an average $20,887 in subsidies. What has this to do with the Indians? The Brits were slaughtered in quantity over many centuries and the situation now is essentially the same as that of the Indians. Here, relatively few Americans are now landlords of the rest of us. (Harpers put it as 5% owning 95% of the privately held land. You'll remember my comment that one landholder owns more land in California than all the homeowners put together.) So, modern economics recognizes this basic problem. In the 900 pages of the best selling economics textbook (McConnell) land is cited four times and land reform gets two paragraphs. (Close to five million students have already studied this stuff.) Contrast this with Classical Analysis, in which all production comes from the interaction of Labor and Land. Even the multiplier of production - Capital - is a product of Labor and Land. Perhaps, to paraphrase, economics is too important to be left to economists. Said Henry George: The progress of civilization requires that more and more intelligence be devoted to social affairs... not the intelligence of the few, but of the many. We cannot safely leave politics to politicians, or political economy to college professors. The people themselves must think, because the people alone can act. Those bloody idealists! Harry --- Ray wrote: Ed and Harry Harry asked? As oil is the lifeblood of the US - does it have a right to defend itself against interruptions in the supply? Did the Irish Peasants have the right to raid the warehouses of the wealthy in order to feed their families? What about the families and towns of India where people are starving when there is plenty of grain? There is an interesting article in the NYTimes today called Catholics Debating: Back President or Pope on Iraq? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/national/06CHUR.html?thhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/national/06CHUR.html?th In this situation the Pope is a kind of Central Government and these conservative Catholics have talked themselves into hating all Central Governments. The issue of the rule of law is a problem to say the least. I suspect the next answer will be to try to do away with tithing (as taxes). In the past, America's Nazi period was called Manifest
Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
that no serious philosophy can be written or even thought in anything other than the German language and then there are the French. I love them all but why do they have to be so genocidally chauvinistically provincial? How can their religion, Christianity, even raise its head and speak the term righteousness when confronting its own history? The lame excuse of claiming that the other people's of the world have done the same speaks nothing since these other groups don't claim a Messiah and a special place as a result of their righteousness.Except maybe the Iroquois...(just kidding George). If you are going to be a child of the King then you had better at least have a Princely demeanor and understand that Leadership is often confused with authoritarian and brutish behaviour, as with our current White House member. As the Roman Catholics say: You can't give forgiveness until the sin is confessed and forgiveness is asked for. Maybe then we can speak of righteousness.Until then it is all jumping up and down, closing your eyes and waving your hands together to the music. REH PS. Ed, I don't mean to offend anyone but the concept of manifest destiny really sets me off. It has nothing to do with how I feel about you or other folks on the list. You guys are talking and that is good.There are some old fashioned Christians and Jews on this list and my experience with them in the past was liberal in the sense of thoughtful and balanced. The same is true of the English on the list and my own English connections which were important in my life. We all have exceptions but then nothing changes because we can't make judgments.I believe that this war is about our being too impotent to make judgments and Manifest Destiny and White Only communities are raising their evil heads again as a result. The admonition not to confront is so strong in me that to do so almost means a declaration of war. That doesn't help. So I would appreciate discussion on these things and understanding that a cultural style that is wrong or genocidal can never be the core, and even more important, is never worth defending if you wish to survive as a viable people.We all have something to share and leadership is a responsibility to exceptionalness and is always a place of service to the whole from the least to the greatest. - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Ed Weick To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Ray Evans Harrell ; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]futurework ; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Interesting stuff, Ray. When it comes to Native peoples, Canada's history is not quite as violent as that of the US, though it's bad enough. A few years ago, Angela Slaughter, and young Micmac, and I wrote a piece on the history of white/Native relations in Canada. If you're interested, take a look at: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/native_claims.htmhttp://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/native_claims.htm Ed Weick - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Ray Evans Harrell To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Ed Weick ; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]futurework ; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Ed and Harry Harry asked? As oil is the lifeblood of the US - does it have a right to defend itself against interruptions in the supply? Did the Irish Peasants have the right to raid the warehouses of the wealthy in order to feed their families? What about the families and towns of India where people are starving when there is plenty of grain? There is an interesting article in the NYTimes today called Catholics Debating: Back President or Pope on Iraq? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/national/06CHUR.html?thhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/national/06CHUR.html?th In this situation the Pope is a kind of Central Government and these conservative Catholics have talked themselves into hating all Central Governments. The issue of the rule of law is a problem to say the least. I suspect the next answer will be to try to do away with tithing (as taxes). In the past, America's Nazi period was called Manifest Destiny It furnished the Final Solution rational that Hitler was to use later on the people he didn't like or want either. Consider the following article by the poet and intellectual Suzan Harjo for Indian Country Today newspaper: -- American Indians see media's bias Historically, press has been our critic, writes columnist Suzan Shown Harjo INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY March 3 Mainstream press had a bumper crop of anti-Indian articles last year. The Wall Street Journal seemed to be on a holy mission to portray Indian people and issues in a negative light. So did myriad print and broadcast reporters and commentators in Connecticut and at least half
Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
Harry, Straight men always get paid. If I'm going to be your straight man then I ought to get a little for it. Time is short so lets make this short and sweet.Did the Irish invent scalping for English bounties?Did the Irish transmit that lovely habit to the US when they came after the famine or was it imported earlier during the time of the English, French, Dutch and Swedes? I've never heard of the French, Dutch (although they were pretty terrible) or Swedes giving bounties for that red strip of skin under the forelock. (Redskins) Since the English made the Irish redskins as well, it must have come from them. LAND: Owning land is like owning sunlight. 2. No one owns the land, they all just use it and whether they do it with respect or not tells us how much of delusional idiots they are or not. What the Irish problem was about was hunger and death, not land. No one owns the land. Everything else is up for grabs and negotiation. As for the English, the issue here is their definition of righteousness and how that relates to their religion.If their religion does not define righteousness and the common good then I don't hold them responsible for it but people who market a Messiah and then speak of being better than everyone else had better be.That is the problem here as well. What is the quality of our souls? That again is all we own.Everything else is just insensitivity and genocidal, chauvinistic, provencialism.Of course I could have used the Thesaurus but I'm not here to entertain. 3. As for Braudel, he is wonderful in the big stuff but misses on the micro-specifics. You went micro and I think missed the big (Braudel) picture. The one the IRA still occasionally bombs England for. But that is just my opinion. REH - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ray Evans Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Ray, Your Irish analogy isn't very good. The Irish appeared to be more law-abiding than they should have been. My favorite story of the times concerns the cart loaded high with food on its way to the landlord's warehouse. The driver had to tell the starving people lining the road to attack his wagon and take the food - which, under his urging, is exactly what they did. Then, when he got to the warehouse, he complained about thugs who had attacked him and stolen the food. Sounds Irish, doesn't it? The famine was, of course, a land problem. It's always a land problem. One notes that in modern Ireland, a measure of land reform has taken place. A greater percentage of Irish own their own homes now than do the Brits (who desperately need land reform). Maximum ownership is apparently 5,000 acres of land. At the time of the famine, an absentee landholder could own a whole county - and did. Ordinary houses in Ireland are now larger than those of the Brits. With 17 times the population, to equal the pace of the Irish, the Brits would have to build 917,000 homes. They manage 170,000. (Back in the 50's the building rate was about 200,000 - maybe more.) Old buildings are not for tourist viewing. It's where the Brits live. Bertrand Russell said that all wars are really wars over land. He was right (including the contemporary possibility). And, as is mentioned in the article, the object of the Indian wars was land. However, it's always better to paint the other guy with horns and a forked tail and that is what was done. So the whites battled while the Indians massacred. Whoever owns the land owns the people (and also owns industry and by extension the politicians). Even Marx pointed out that the industrial revolution was financed by the landlords. You'll recall that 150 years later some 6,000 own two thirds of Britain and most of the Brits own nothing, or perhaps a postage stamp size under their home. Actually, the 60 million Brits live in 24 million dwellings (the post-war Labor government called them accommodation units). The 24 million dwellings sit on 4.4 million acres (7.7% of total Brit land). Three quarters of the population live on only 5.8% of the land, about 3.5 million acres (total 60 million). The land component of their accommodation unit will be from half to two thirds of the total cost. In other words, a third of the price of the house will go to building the house - two thirds will buy the right to build it. To drive the lesson home, the council tax (property tax) on an average home will be $935 a year, while the stately homes of the landowners receive an average $20,887 in subsidies. What has this to do with the Indians? The Brits were slaughtered in quantity over many centuries and the situation now is essentially the same as that of the Indians. Here, relatively few Americans are now landlords of the rest of us. (Harpers put it as 5
Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
Harry, your questions are more than a little difficult. With regard to handling future dangers, much would seem to depend on how and by whom the dangers are perceived. Is the danger real, or is it being fabricated so that other objectives, often hidden from the citizenry, can be achieved? All I can suggest is that, given the state of the world, every country should be prepared to defend its people and territory. However, I would also suggest that this stops well short of justifying a preemptive strike. With regard to the interruption of the supply of oil, I would say, yes, the US has the right to defend itself. However, the enormous and inefficient dependence of the US on global oil supplies needs to be considered. How did the US get into the position of being so dependent on foreign resources? What steps can it take to reduce this dependence and make its use of oil more efficient? There are no simple answers to either of your questions. Ed Weick - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED]; futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Ed, Very good post! Something I would like comment on - from everyone, if possible. Does a country have the right to take steps to handle a perceived danger in the future. As oil is the lifeblood of the US - does it have a right to defend itself against interruptions in the supply? Harry Ed wrote: Some of you may have read the Mother Jones article by Robert Dreyfus. I posted the URL the other day. It suggests that what is going on, and has gone on, in the Middle East is part of long-term strategy for global dominance that Washington hawks have developed over the past few decades. I've argued something like this in earlier postings, pointing out that both the location and resources of the Middle East are enormously strategic. The power that controls the Mid East may dominate the world during the next few decades. Thus far I've tended to think of this need for dominance in terms of the economy (energy) and power (keeping a lid on terror, etc.), but it also has more idealistic origins. Since its beginnings as a nation, America, in various ways, has been in a state of continuous expansion. During the earlier parts of the 19th Century this expansion was mainly confined to carving and filling out the continental United States. As settlers moved westward from the original colonies, vast tracts of lands were taken from the Indians, Louisiana was purchased from the French, and parts of the southwest and far west were forcibly taken from Mexico. Expansionism continued during the later part of the 19th Century and into the 20th with the Spanish-American War and the building of the Panama Canal. It continued throughout the 20th Century in Central America, Korea and Vietnam. Where it was not militaristic in nature, it was economic. Often, it was both. However, by then it was no longer confined to the American continent. It had gone world wide. While this expansion was at times brutal and typically exploitative, it had to be dressed up in the highest of ideals and principles. During much of the 19th Century, it was part of the nation's manifest destiny - something that simply had to happen because it represented a superior way and quality of life. In the 20th Century it was about progress and keeping the world safe for democracy. Currently, though it is most likely about oil and dominance at a material level, it is given the idealistic clothing of constructing global democracy. I heard a commentator on the radio this morning express concerns about what America is doing and where it may be taking us. One of the points he made was that people dream their own dreams and cannot easily dream someone else's. Global democracy may be a fine concept for Americans but may be difficult to export because others have different concepts of how to govern themselves. Authoritarianism at the top does not necessarily preclude democratic institutions at the village or regional level, as was demonstrated in Czarist Russia. Nor does democracy at the top guarantee democracy at the village level, as is illustrated by the re-emergence of regional warlords in Afghanistan. Democracy is almost certainly not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon, and people have to have to decide how much freedom versus authority is tolerable at all levels of society, and then they have to figure out how to practically achieve the appropriate balance. And we may have to accept the possibility that some people will take a very long time to figure it out. Intervention in the affairs of other nations should not be based on giving them a particular model of democracy, but on giving them the means and breathing space to figure out what model might best suit them
Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
ely, more and more scholarship and research needs to emerge from the Indian experience, from the cultural logic, from the Native intellectual bases. The idea of "the people," is one required principle. Respectful assessment of human interfaces with the natural world is another. Woman as the center of family and family as center of nation has great durability in the cultural thinking as well. There is of course much more. The picture is this: Indian sovereignty as a base of legal reality for some 562 Native nations and communities in the United States, with its central argument of politically and culturally distinct bases within the American nation state, must be continually analyzed, understood and lived. Sovereignty, always a goal, is not always practiced at its desired level. The quest of Native nations to strive for self-sufficiency and for self-reliance is to persist in the world as peoples. This inspirational and innovative endeavor to endow a chair at an institution of higher learning, signaled by Oneida leadership, challenges wealthy tribes to also endow programs that will support teaching and research positions, in university and college programs at major institutions, including tribal colleges, throughout the country. We hope it starts a trend. Well-to-do tribes are urged to consider the model. One of these endowments provided annually or as appropriate for the rest of the decade seems a great goal. By funding these types of endowed chairs, and by funding endowments for the tribal colleges and for policy think tanks, the line of defense on Indian rights can hold. The country needs to hear Native perspectives. Indian country needs to entertain new ideas and know how events and trends affect our home communities. Endowments for American Indian legal scholarship; for education and for research; for communication and expression of the American Indian standing; these are great and sustainable gifts to the generations. This article can be found at http://IndianCountry.com/?1044810992 - Original Message - From: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "futurework" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Ed, Very good post! Something I would like comment on - from everyone, if possible. Does a country have the right to take steps to handle a perceived danger in the future. As oil is the lifeblood of the US - does it have a right to defend itself against interruptions in the supply? Harry Ed wrote: Some of you may have read the Mother Jones article by Robert Dreyfus. I posted the URL the other day. It suggests that what is going on, and has gone on, in the Middle East is part of long-term strategy for global dominance that Washington hawks have developed over the past few decades. I've argued something like this in earlier postings, pointing out that both the location and resources of the Middle East are enormously strategic. The power that controls the Mid East may dominate the world during the next few decades. Thus far I've tended to think of this need for dominance in terms of the economy (energy) and power (keeping a lid on terror, etc.), but it also has more idealistic origins. Since its beginnings as a nation, America, in various ways, has been in a state of continuous expansion. During the earlier parts of the 19th Century this expansion was mainly confined to carving and filling out the continental United States. As settlers moved westward from the original colonies, vast tracts of lands were taken from the Indians, Louisiana was purchased from the French, and parts of the southwest and far west were forcibly taken from Mexico. Expansionism continued during the later part of the 19th Century and into the 20th with the Spanish-American War and the building of the Panama Canal. It continued throughout the 20th Century in Central America, Korea and Vietnam. Where it was not militaristic in nature, it was economic. Often, it was both. However, by then it was no longer confined to the American continent. It had gone world wide. While this expansion was at times brutal and typically exploitative, it had to be dressed up in the highest of ideals and principles. During much of the 19th Century, it was part of the nation's "manifest destiny" - something that simply had to happen because it represented a superior way and quality of life. In the 20th Century it was about progress and keeping the world safe for democracy. Currently, though it is most likely about oil and dominance at a material level, it is given the idealistic clothing of constructing global democracy. I heard a commentator on the radio this morning express concerns about what America is doing and where it may be
Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
Interesting stuff, Ray. When it comes to Native peoples, Canada's history is not quite as violent as that of the US, though it's bad enough. A few years ago, Angela Slaughter, and young Micmac, and I wrote a piece on the history of white/Native relations in Canada. If you're interested, take a look at: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/native_claims.htm Ed Weick - Original Message - From: Ray Evans Harrell To: Ed Weick ; futurework ; Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Ed and Harry Harry asked? As oil is the lifeblood of the US - does it have a right to defend itself against interruptions in the supply? Did the Irish Peasants have the right to raid the warehouses of the wealthy in order to feed their families? What about the families and towns of India where people are starving when there is plenty of grain? There is an interesting article in the NYTimes today called "Catholics Debating: Back President or Pope on Iraq?"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/national/06CHUR.html?th In this situation the Pope is a kind of Central Government and these conservative Catholics have talked themselves into hating all Central Governments. The issue of the rule of law is a problem to say the least. I suspect the next answer will be to try to do away with tithing (as taxes). In the past, America's "Nazi" period was called "Manifest Destiny" It furnished the "Final Solution" rational that Hitler was to use later on the people he didn't like or want either. Consider the following article by the poet and intellectual Suzan Harjo for Indian Country Today newspaper: American Indians see medias biasHistorically, press has been our critic, writes columnistSuzan Shown HarjoINDIAN COUNTRY TODAY March 3 Mainstream press had a bumper crop of anti-Indian articles last year. The Wall Street Journal seemed to be on a holy mission to portray Indian people and issues in a negative light. So did myriad print and broadcast reporters and commentators in Connecticut and at least half of the shouting heads on cable television. The capper for 2002 was TIME magazines coverage of Indian casinos in two December issues. As a result of TIMEs articles, members of Congress are calling for hearings on gaming and federal recognition, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, told delegates at a Feb. 24 Washington meeting of the National Congress of American Indians. Senate hearings will take place in the Committee on Indian Affairs, which Inouye has led in one of the two top positions since the 1980s and now serves as vice chairman. The magazine articles pose a question: What is a tribe for the purposes of conducting gaming, said Inouye. While personally against gaming, he said that Indian gaming monies meet the long unmet needs of decades of broken promises. As long as those promises are not carried out, youll find me marching with you for gaming. Inouye said Indian ancestors would say, Youve done well, youve stood tallyouve succeeded. But success has come with a whole legion of critics, he said, counting TIME among them. Dont let the critics tell your story. Historically, the American mainstream press has been our critic, missing and ignoring our story, or deliberately getting it wrong. Newspapers RoleGreed for Indian land, rather than Indian success, was the trigger for negative reporting in the 1800s and 1900s. Most newspaper families - such as the Hearst publishing empire that was built on Black Hills gold - owned the mines and railroads and were an integral part of westward expansion. True believers in the manifest destiny of whites to own the new world, they advocated and instigated violence against Indian people who stood in their way. Newspapers were essential to the federal governments 1880-1934 civilization campaign to eradicate Indian religions, languages and traditions, including ceremonial dancing. Most of the stories were written in what one federal circular promoted as a careful propaganda to educate public opinion against the dance. The Army and the Smithsonian in the late-1800s used newspapers to advertise for collectors to harvest Indian crania and grave goods. No papers reported on these activities, but occasionally they reported on Indian skulls of local interest. One in 1890 in the Rocky Mountain News appeared under these headlines: A Bad Utes Skull/An Indians Brain Pan in a Denver Gun Store/Tab-we-ap Was a Redskin of the Worst Type/His Career of Deviltry Was Brought to an End by the Avenging Bullet of a White Man. Newspapers of the day publicized bounty notices on current uprisings. A 1922 article in the Rock
Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
ur eyes and waving your hands together to the music. REH PS. Ed, I don't mean to offend anyone but the concept of "manifest destiny" really sets me off. It has nothing to do with how I feel about youor other folks on the list. You guys are talking and that is good. There are some old fashioned Christians and Jews on this list and my experience with them in the past was liberal in the sense of thoughtful and balanced. The same is true of theEnglish on the list and my own English connections which were important in my life. We all have exceptions but then nothing changes because we can't make judgments. I believe that this war is about our being too impotent to make judgments andManifest Destiny and "White Only" communities are raising their evil heads again as a result. The admonition not to confront is so strong in me that to do soalmost means a declaration of war. That doesn't help. So I would appreciate discussion on these things and understanding that a cultural style that is wrong or genocidalcan never bethe core, and even more important, is never worth defending if you wish to survive as a viable people. We all have something to share and leadership is a responsibility to exceptionalness and is always a place of service to the whole from the least to the greatest. - Original Message - From: Ed Weick To: Ray Evans Harrell ; futurework ; Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Interesting stuff, Ray. When it comes to Native peoples, Canada's history is not quite as violent as that of the US, though it's bad enough. A few years ago, Angela Slaughter, and young Micmac, and I wrote a piece on the history of white/Native relations in Canada. If you're interested, take a look at: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/native_claims.htm Ed Weick - Original Message - From: Ray Evans Harrell To: Ed Weick ; futurework ; Harry Pollard Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny? Ed and Harry Harry asked? As oil is the lifeblood of the US - does it have a right to defend itself against interruptions in the supply? Did the Irish Peasants have the right to raid the warehouses of the wealthy in order to feed their families? What about the families and towns of India where people are starving when there is plenty of grain? There is an interesting article in the NYTimes today called "Catholics Debating: Back President or Pope on Iraq?"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/national/06CHUR.html?th In this situation the Pope is a kind of Central Government and these conservative Catholics have talked themselves into hating all Central Governments. The issue of the rule of law is a problem to say the least. I suspect the next answer will be to try to do away with tithing (as taxes). In the past, America's "Nazi" period was called "Manifest Destiny" It furnished the "Final Solution" rational that Hitler was to use later on the people he didn't like or want either. Consider the following article by the poet and intellectual Suzan Harjo for Indian Country Today newspaper: American Indians see medias biasHistorically, press has been our critic, writes columnistSuzan Shown HarjoINDIAN COUNTRY TODAY March 3 Mainstream press had a bumper crop of anti-Indian articles last year. The Wall Street Journal seemed to be on a holy mission to portray Indian people and issues in a negative light. So did myriad print and broadcast reporters and commentators in Connecticut and at least half of the shouting heads on cable television. The capper for 2002 was TIME magazines coverage of Indian casinos in two December issues. As a result of TIMEs articles, members of Congress are calling for hearings on gaming and federal recognition, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, told delegates at a Feb. 24 Washington meeting of the National Congress of American Indians. Senate hearings will take place in the Committee on Indian Affairs, which Inouye has led in one of the two top positions since the 1980s and now serves as vice chairman. The magazine articles pose a question: What is a tribe for the purposes of conducting gaming, said Inouye. While personally against gaming, he said that Indian gaming monies meet the long unmet needs of decades of broken promises. As long as those promises are not carried out, youll find me marching with you for gaming. Inouye said Indian ancestors would say, Youve done well, youve stood tall youve succeeded. But succes
Re: [Futurework] Manifest Destiny?
Ed, Very good post! Something I would like comment on - from everyone, if possible. Does a country have the right to take steps to handle a perceived danger in the future. As oil is the lifeblood of the US - does it have a right to defend itself against interruptions in the supply? Harry Ed wrote: Some of you may have read the Mother Jones article by Robert Dreyfus. I posted the URL the other day. It suggests that what is going on, and has gone on, in the Middle East is part of long-term strategy for global dominance that Washington hawks have developed over the past few decades. I've argued something like this in earlier postings, pointing out that both the location and resources of the Middle East are enormously strategic. The power that controls the Mid East may dominate the world during the next few decades. Thus far I've tended to think of this need for dominance in terms of the economy (energy) and power (keeping a lid on terror, etc.), but it also has more idealistic origins. Since its beginnings as a nation, America, in various ways, has been in a state of continuous expansion. During the earlier parts of the 19th Century this expansion was mainly confined to carving and filling out the continental United States. As settlers moved westward from the original colonies, vast tracts of lands were taken from the Indians, Louisiana was purchased from the French, and parts of the southwest and far west were forcibly taken from Mexico. Expansionism continued during the later part of the 19th Century and into the 20th with the Spanish-American War and the building of the Panama Canal. It continued throughout the 20th Century in Central America, Korea and Vietnam. Where it was not militaristic in nature, it was economic. Often, it was both. However, by then it was no longer confined to the American continent. It had gone world wide. While this expansion was at times brutal and typically exploitative, it had to be dressed up in the highest of ideals and principles. During much of the 19th Century, it was part of the nation's manifest destiny - something that simply had to happen because it represented a superior way and quality of life. In the 20th Century it was about progress and keeping the world safe for democracy. Currently, though it is most likely about oil and dominance at a material level, it is given the idealistic clothing of constructing global democracy. I heard a commentator on the radio this morning express concerns about what America is doing and where it may be taking us. One of the points he made was that people dream their own dreams and cannot easily dream someone else's. Global democracy may be a fine concept for Americans but may be difficult to export because others have different concepts of how to govern themselves. Authoritarianism at the top does not necessarily preclude democratic institutions at the village or regional level, as was demonstrated in Czarist Russia. Nor does democracy at the top guarantee democracy at the village level, as is illustrated by the re-emergence of regional warlords in Afghanistan. Democracy is almost certainly not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon, and people have to have to decide how much freedom versus authority is tolerable at all levels of society, and then they have to figure out how to practically achieve the appropriate balance. And we may have to accept the possibility that some people will take a very long time to figure it out. Intervention in the affairs of other nations should not be based on giving them a particular model of democracy, but on giving them the means and breathing space to figure out what model might best suit them. Ed Weick ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *** --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/2003
