The price of intervention

Recently, I saw a comment on a Facebook thread that set my teeth on edge. You've probably seen comments that do this to you as well. The commenter is being lighthearted and the content of the photo or link has nothing to do with the comment - it is just an add-on - a tangent. And yet, it is so potent and offensive in its casualness. Let me explain.

Here is the portion of the comment that caught my attention:

"...I want to run like the wind with a Pocahontas costume..."

For those of you who know me and know that my academic focus is Indigenous Rhetorics, you know that this kind of fun, easy, seemingly innocuous comment is anything but fun and innocuous. Easy? Yes, because of the ubiquity of misinformation about real Indigenous peoples and because of the ubiquity of misappropriation and misrepresentation about real Indigenous peoples, past and present. Fortunately, my friend whose photo this thread was on is understanding and reacted exceedingly well to my intervention comment. 

To intervene or not? That is, perpetually, the question. Vine Deloria, Jr. wrote in Custer Died for Your Sins that "we need a cultural leave-us-alone agreement." He meant American Indians need us white people to leave them alone - stop writing about, studying, trying to help - just stop intervening. All respect to Deloria and his motivation for making this statement, but I disagree to a certain extent. 

The price we pay for NOT intervening and NOT trying to help change the narrative about real Indigenous peoples and cultures is the continuation and predominance of misinformation, stereotypes, and misappropriation of Indigenous peoples, their cultures, practices, sacred items, languages, names, everything. If you doubt what I say, consider this brief list of products and organizations:

Cherikee Red soda, Washington Redskins, Calumet Baking Soda (logo), Land 'o Lakes Butter (logo), Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves (and their fans' charming "tomahawk chop"), Disney's Pocahontas, Princess Pocahottie (Halloween Costume), "What Makes the Redman Red?" (Disney song), Lone Ranger and Tonto (TV show and newer film), Firewater Whiskey, Jeep Cherokee, Ford Thunderbird, Winnebago (this is the "Chieftain" model), Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, Sue Bee Honey, Urban Outfitters' "Navajo Panties" et al, hipster headdresses. . . .I could go on.

Argument: All of these representations are racist.
Counterargument: "But we're honoring Natives!"

Here, read this. She says it better than I could. And has all of the persuasive visuals to back up her argument embedded in the post. 

As an outsider to this issue, all I can do is feel sympathy and offer action in my own small way. So I post stories to Facebook, I teach college students, and I intervene online when I see a seemingly innocuous comment that I know was not intended to be offensive. Most people just don't know. And while I do have a great deal of sympathy for this unwitting lack of knowledge, I also understand that 'not knowing' is just shy of being a lame excuse. However, as I am committed to changing the narrative, I do my best not to be too aggressive in my approach. But the hesitance that I still feel, even after years of studying this issue, writing about it, and educating people. . .that hesitance is what bothers me.

I paused when I saw that FB thread comment. Stared at it. Read it over and over, in fact, debating whether to say something or not. I knew the stakes. My friend and her friend may not take too kindly to being told, even in the kindest terms, that Disney's Pocahontas is a complete misrepresentation that sets the stage for believing Native peoples to be fantasy relics of the past - invisible to our current lives. The stakes for me are fairly straightforward whenever I make public activist statements that advocate strongly for a position or a group - I may lose friends, I may make enemies, I may be thought of in ill-terms, or at least thought of with accompanying eye rolls. Interestingly, all of these thoughts did cross my mind, but then another thought dominated and it is the one that caused me to act. 

I can handle losing friends, making enemies, and being thought of with eye-rolls. What I choose not to handle with silence (which, to me, implies acceptance) is the persistent expectation that Indigenous peoples do not currently exist and do not have feelings if they do. I consider myself fortunate to have many colleagues who hail from such diverse nations as Miami, Citizen Potawatomie, Eastern Band of Cherokee, Osage, and more. When I see such lighthearted comments, I think of my colleagues and students and the harm these types of comments are doing to them. And I just can't sit quietly by for the sake of peace in the family and friend circle. 

I've never been one to leave anything alone, least of all a blatant injustice. I encourage you to consider intervening the next time you see any kind of lighthearted comment made about a group of people that you care about. The personal price is miniscule and worth paying if the result is just one more person who gets it. 

Change may be slow, but as individuals, we must be willing to pay a small personal price in order to make progress. We will enjoy a more open, tolerant, and knowledgeable society, and that is the result of intervention. 

When symbolism isn't enough

As I write this, people and pieces of the story are moving and the situation will inevitably change again by the time I publish this post.

The story I refer to is the Idle No More movement, and more specifically, the meeting in Ottawa scheduled today (Friday, Jan. 11, 2013) between some First Nations chiefs and high-ranking politicians, including Prime Minister Steven Harper and the British Crown's man in Canada, Governor General David Johnston.

I've been watching this story with great interest and hope because the time is well past due for Indigenous peoples to rise up collectively and force the government's hand to deal with them as sovereign nations. Although this is a Canadian region indigenous movement, I also think about the U.S. government, and hope that the tribal nations here will follow suit. Western governments dealing unfairly and downright dishonestly with Native peoples is not new - at least not to anyone who has read about these historical and contemporary issues. According to this writer, I am one of those "mushy progressive-types," as well as a "dogmatic" Indigenous studies academic (curse my existence!) who won't give up on this movement or Attawapisket Chief Theresa Spence.

For those of you who may not know, Chief Spence went on a hunger strike on Dec. 11, 2012 to force the government's hand. Her demands were fairly straightforward: A meeting between herself, Prime Minister Harper, and Gov. Gen. Johnston to discuss aboriginal treaty rights. That has since grown to include many other First Nations chiefs. At first, Harper and Johnston refused to meet. And then Harper agreed to meet. Spence refused to attend until Johnston attended. He finally relented a couple of days ago.

But Chief Spence still refuses to attend the meeting, and now this potential grand symbolic moment that has much of the world's attention may fall apart.

Part of me wishes she would agree to attend so as not to lose public support of the greater cause. Being a leader sometimes means compromising - and her basic demands have been met. However, as some critics have charged, the purpose and foundation of this meeting seems to be changing - a shifting sand. It is difficult as an outsider to know what exactly was demanded initially, how those demands have changed, and how all of the players are truly responding - because all of this news is filtered through a biased media lens.

Indian Country Today Media Network presents a fairly balanced perspective, but is the Indigenous perspective, so is naturally sympathetic.

All other news outlets seem to be mildly to extremely negative and intent on making this entire story just go away. And it seems, there is a growing portion of the Canadian general populace that agrees. Consider these comments to this story in the Calgary Herald:

A "Top Commenter," Keith Carter, writes, "Missing Million$, and now a demand that the Queen's Representative attend or she won't? Enough of this showboating fraud. Cancel the meeting, the Indian Act and the Reserves. Time to join the rest of us in making an honest living." This comment received 21 likes at last count and one of his respondents, another "Top Commenter," Mildred Johnson, agreed, "Time for us to demand that the gov't stop giving money to these thieves, thus throwing our tax dollars after bad and giving it to the criminals on the reserves."

The public relations and media coverage of the Idle No More movement and Chief Theresa Spence's hunger strike has been generally positive until about a week ago when she first refused to attend the meeting. Many writers have pointed out that she is now losing support from non-Native allies and Native peoples alike. Yesterday, I said to a colleague that she really ought to attend this meeting, especially now that the Governor General has agreed to attend, because sometimes leaders must lead even in imperfect situations. The attention this issue has received is incredible and continues to grow. We live in an ADHD world now with all of us more susceptible to being like Doug in UP, turning at the slightest distraction away from important issues at hand. My colleague observed that Spence is the shiny object and we're all watching her...what happens if she loses our attention? Will the Idle No More Movement lose momentum? If this meeting today falls apart, doesn't that just benefit the Canadian government?

I may be a mushy, liberal, "progressive-type," pro-Indigenous rights academic, but I also live in a world of compromise (academia has taught me this lesson well). I understand Spence's position that symbolism and "ceremonial meetings" aren't enough...but it is a start. And I do hope that she attends and continues being a strong and vital leader for her Attawapisket people and all Indigenous peoples.