Interesting piece in the ADN covering a project I'd heard about from a couple people, and saw recently came into more public light. It covers the radio "Cash for Tlingits" incident.
Julia O'Malley's piece in ADN.
Race is not a warm 'n' fuzzy topic at best in Anchorage, and ammunition for even more hurt and anger at worst. If things like this can happen, it does make me a little more hopeful for future taks, though.
Showing posts with label eskimos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eskimos. Show all posts
Friday, September 3, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Nudging my way into existence
Bearing in mind my voice might be echoing in the halls here, I still felt a desire to comment on something I saw in the ADN Newsreader today. Or rather, something the Newsreader brought from the Stop and Smell the Lichen blog.
Nuna Inua starts out, "I do not exist."
It goes on more about how it is her position, her job that does not exist as far as traditional culture. What position is there of "artist" in traditional culture, and how can creating art possibly trample upon culture?
It is something I have struggled with as a Tlingit fiction writer. While engaging since high school in nonfiction forms of publication, it is creative fiction that has my heart. Tlingit culture, I think, embraces the idea of "artist" more readily than what Nuna Inua describes her own culture as being able to define. There is no traditional "artist" who "only" created art for a living, but it was a position nontheless. People talented and disciplined in beautiful carving would supplement their own living by creating commissioned pieces to wealthy folk. This kind of practice goes far, far back in our culture.
But, as my mother said, "There's no such thing as Tlingit fiction."
In trying to recreate ficitonal stories from traditional legend, I now begin to wrestle with how I can do this without "lying" by creating a part that is not true to history, without plagiarism, without taking from what belongs to others. You see, while Native stories are more often labeled as "myth and legend" in educational circles, these stories were passed down for millenia as history. Fact. Only in very modern times has society begun to play with our culture's history as fiction, with little regard to the ramifications.
So, as a fiction writer trying to honor my culture's past, how do I fictionalize it and honor it at the same time?
To be honest, I'm not completely sure that my story isn't going to be rejected outright by many Elders immediately, despite the care I've taken for that not to happen, and despite my own fears.
There are many things in my culture, and I imagine in other Native cultures, that honor the past by "dishonoring" it. Tlingit people have so much complicated protocol, a traditional political and familial system that still weaves its way into contemporary politics and family life - and I love it. But it does present some difficulties for the modern Tlingit fiction writer.
Whenever you see a traditional Tlingit dance group, remember that there used to be no such thing. Everybody danced, everybody knew their clan songs, and they sang them with the clan. The need for, or the entertainment value of, a dance group would be quite strange. Being a member of one, I'm not saying there isn't a need now - but you see how things that are even now considered "traditional" become a little hairy when you talk about how traditional they really are? Yet a culture that does not change is not alive.
I was very intrigued by the inherent questions posed in the blog, because they are things I've long struggled with, and, clearly, I'm not alone in. How do you balance the razor's edge between tradition and adaptation? How do you keep a culture alive if it never changes - yet how much change makes the culture extinct? I like a friend's description of how Alaska Native cultures are in a twilight period between what they were, and what they will become... but it is still a bit bittersweet to think of.
'
I'm a firm believer that art will play a monumental part in the revival of Native culture in Alaska. So how do we artists, we Native people, we "real human beings" navigate this new realm built on the shoulders of our ancestors?
_
Nuna Inua starts out, "I do not exist."
It goes on more about how it is her position, her job that does not exist as far as traditional culture. What position is there of "artist" in traditional culture, and how can creating art possibly trample upon culture?
It is something I have struggled with as a Tlingit fiction writer. While engaging since high school in nonfiction forms of publication, it is creative fiction that has my heart. Tlingit culture, I think, embraces the idea of "artist" more readily than what Nuna Inua describes her own culture as being able to define. There is no traditional "artist" who "only" created art for a living, but it was a position nontheless. People talented and disciplined in beautiful carving would supplement their own living by creating commissioned pieces to wealthy folk. This kind of practice goes far, far back in our culture.
But, as my mother said, "There's no such thing as Tlingit fiction."
In trying to recreate ficitonal stories from traditional legend, I now begin to wrestle with how I can do this without "lying" by creating a part that is not true to history, without plagiarism, without taking from what belongs to others. You see, while Native stories are more often labeled as "myth and legend" in educational circles, these stories were passed down for millenia as history. Fact. Only in very modern times has society begun to play with our culture's history as fiction, with little regard to the ramifications.
So, as a fiction writer trying to honor my culture's past, how do I fictionalize it and honor it at the same time?
To be honest, I'm not completely sure that my story isn't going to be rejected outright by many Elders immediately, despite the care I've taken for that not to happen, and despite my own fears.
There are many things in my culture, and I imagine in other Native cultures, that honor the past by "dishonoring" it. Tlingit people have so much complicated protocol, a traditional political and familial system that still weaves its way into contemporary politics and family life - and I love it. But it does present some difficulties for the modern Tlingit fiction writer.
Whenever you see a traditional Tlingit dance group, remember that there used to be no such thing. Everybody danced, everybody knew their clan songs, and they sang them with the clan. The need for, or the entertainment value of, a dance group would be quite strange. Being a member of one, I'm not saying there isn't a need now - but you see how things that are even now considered "traditional" become a little hairy when you talk about how traditional they really are? Yet a culture that does not change is not alive.
I was very intrigued by the inherent questions posed in the blog, because they are things I've long struggled with, and, clearly, I'm not alone in. How do you balance the razor's edge between tradition and adaptation? How do you keep a culture alive if it never changes - yet how much change makes the culture extinct? I like a friend's description of how Alaska Native cultures are in a twilight period between what they were, and what they will become... but it is still a bit bittersweet to think of.
'
I'm a firm believer that art will play a monumental part in the revival of Native culture in Alaska. So how do we artists, we Native people, we "real human beings" navigate this new realm built on the shoulders of our ancestors?
_
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Obama Administration in Rural Alaska
I know, I know, this is kinda late. But I was perusing Tundra Drums, and thought this was a pretty good article about the members of Obama's cabinet who visited rural Alaska recently. Interesting to hear their take on local issues. I liked what the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development remarked on:
Toward the end of the day, as the secretaries boarded their plane, a reporter asked Donovan if he thought federal money was being wasted in Alaska.
“I haven’t seen any wasted money today,” he said emphatically. “This is a critical, critical resource for these folks here and we’re going to do everything we can to take care of the needs we’ve seen here today.”
The image above is from this booklet, which does a pretty fair job of spelling out some of the "problems and solutions" in rural Alaska.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Begich gives maiden speech, introduces Inuvikput bills. Love it.
I was really expecting a sort of typical, "Let's drill!" sort of focus, not because that's what Begich tends to do, but when an Alaskan politician gets in front of the U.S. Senate, that's kind of what I expect. Okay... not really fair, but it was a pretty long time, with a pretty big spotlight, to have the floor, and I think it's awesome that it was about the Arctic - preservaton, responsiblity, focus on those most affected in the regions. He mentions drilling, but in the light of needing more responsibility, including ensuring safe drilling in the first place, and ensuring those in the region aren't affected, and protection if they are.
He uses an Inupiaq word to describe the package of bills - Inuvikput - and really gives an awful lot of attention and focus on Native and rural issues and impact. Worth a listen to:
There's more details on some of the bills on Shannyn Moore's page, including:
Yes - this is EXACTLY why I voted for Begich!!
He also mentioned something about a bill he is still considering giving - something that got tabled - on an Arctic advisory council:
He uses an Inupiaq word to describe the package of bills - Inuvikput - and really gives an awful lot of attention and focus on Native and rural issues and impact. Worth a listen to:
There's more details on some of the bills on Shannyn Moore's page, including:
Arctic OCS Revenue Sharing Act – Alaska Natives who have subsisted on marine mammals and other arctic resources for thousands of years would bear the direct risks of increased commercial activity in their waters. This bill directs a portion of federal revenues from offshore oil and gas development – the same share Louisiana receives from drilling in the adjacent Gulf of Mexico – to the State of Alaska with a percentage of those funds directed to those most affected.
Arctic Health Research Act – People of the Arctic suffer from increased rates of alcohol abuse, diabetes, high blood pressure, and death from injury and suicide. This act would initiate a study into the mental, behavioral and physical health problems in the Arctic, institute an Arctic health assessment program at the Centers for Disease Control and create an “Arctic desk” at the National Institute of Health that was called for in 1984 but has never been established.
Yes - this is EXACTLY why I voted for Begich!!
He also mentioned something about a bill he is still considering giving - something that got tabled - on an Arctic advisory council:
Begich said he is considering introducing an additional piece of legislation focused on providing the people of Alaska's Arctic with more of a voice in the decisions affecting their lives. The bill would establish an Arctic Regional and Citizens Advisory Council, modeled after similar councils which successfully operate in the Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet regions of Alaska. At the request of the North Slope Borough mayor, Begich said he held off introducing the bill pending further discussions with the people of Alaska's North Slope, as well and industry and regulatory stakeholders.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Alaska Native contract senate hearings
What with all the Palin news, I haven't even attempted much Native news updates. But there's a whole lot going on, especially in D.C.
Senate hearings on Alaska Native contracts (from the Anchorage Daily News)
Probably one of the most publicized Native news pieces is regarding the Alaska Native federal contracts. In short - many Alaska Native corporations are using a small-business administration program that allows for preference to minority-owned businesses. U.S. Sen. McCaskill is trying to create big reform, saying that the corporations are abusing the program.
It is hard to say where I really stand on this - I can see both sides. There are Alaska Native corporations I don't really think can be called a disadvantaged business, and I think competition should happen (some of the contracts are given without.) Yet my fear is what happens with most things regarding Alaska Native corporations - they are all painted with the same brush. The Alaska Native corporations that are raking in the money are an incredible minority. Many are really struggling - one of the 13 regional corporations looks to have gone under. What's more, the Alaska Native corporations that are succeeding take constant flak for their success. Can we all turn around and make Kaladi Brothers justify their success at every turn? My guess is it was smart business practices.
I don't know enough about the current laws to see where reform is needed. It seems like fair should be fair - a business that is disadvantaged should hold the same weight in a bid as another business that is disadvantaged in the spirit of the program. If that's not happening, things should change. They should define just who they are trying to give help to.
One thing many don't understand about Native corporations is that they are not run at all like regular corporations. What other corporations are required to give 70% of its natural resource profits to "competing" companies if they aren't doing well? Can you imagine if Conoco Philips were required to give 70% of its profits from oil to Exxon when Exxon had a bad run? Yet all the big (13) Native corporations are required to do this, or at least the ones doing well.
And the money doesn't all go to line pockets of "all the wealthy Natives." I'm sure enough of it finds its way to corruption, as in any major business, but I would wager most Native corporations people see on a regular basis are actually non-profits. The money goes to health care, social services, cultural programs, scholarships and justice programs.
Coca-Cola and Microsoft get major kudos when they give a small percentage of their profit toward college scholarships and building a wing in a hospital. I challenge anyone to look at just how much the for-profit Native corporations have spent on the non-profits - health care, justice, culture, housing, you name it. What's more, they are expected to do this, and little recognition is given, or at least, certainly not the same recognition as a non-Native corporation.
I'm glad they are doing it, and I do expect Native corporations to spend substantial amounts on Native health, welfare and culture. I just hope that people realize these contracts aren't given, and then every Native person in Alaska is walking around with a fortune in Native dividend checks.
To be transparent about my own tie to this, I have received exactly three checks in my life from my corporation - the largest sum was enough to pay two months car insurance, the smallest two tanks of gas. I don't happen to think there's anything so wrong with that - I would rather the shareholder money go toward building up tradtional language programs or funding college (I HAVE earned scholarships, and would prefer those any day!) than paying my bills... Of course, I'm not struggling with outrageous heating costs and children to feed, so I have the freedom to say that.
I'm glad both Sen. Begich and Sen. Murkowski are fighting the good fight on this. Although I'm sure reform is on its way, I have a hope that it will be fair, instead of a retribution, or favoring some other side. Don't know that that is how it will turn out, but with the many voices I've been hearing about in D.C. speaking out about this, and two senators, there's at least a chance... right?
Senate hearings on Alaska Native contracts (from the Anchorage Daily News)
Probably one of the most publicized Native news pieces is regarding the Alaska Native federal contracts. In short - many Alaska Native corporations are using a small-business administration program that allows for preference to minority-owned businesses. U.S. Sen. McCaskill is trying to create big reform, saying that the corporations are abusing the program.
It is hard to say where I really stand on this - I can see both sides. There are Alaska Native corporations I don't really think can be called a disadvantaged business, and I think competition should happen (some of the contracts are given without.) Yet my fear is what happens with most things regarding Alaska Native corporations - they are all painted with the same brush. The Alaska Native corporations that are raking in the money are an incredible minority. Many are really struggling - one of the 13 regional corporations looks to have gone under. What's more, the Alaska Native corporations that are succeeding take constant flak for their success. Can we all turn around and make Kaladi Brothers justify their success at every turn? My guess is it was smart business practices.
I don't know enough about the current laws to see where reform is needed. It seems like fair should be fair - a business that is disadvantaged should hold the same weight in a bid as another business that is disadvantaged in the spirit of the program. If that's not happening, things should change. They should define just who they are trying to give help to.
One thing many don't understand about Native corporations is that they are not run at all like regular corporations. What other corporations are required to give 70% of its natural resource profits to "competing" companies if they aren't doing well? Can you imagine if Conoco Philips were required to give 70% of its profits from oil to Exxon when Exxon had a bad run? Yet all the big (13) Native corporations are required to do this, or at least the ones doing well.
And the money doesn't all go to line pockets of "all the wealthy Natives." I'm sure enough of it finds its way to corruption, as in any major business, but I would wager most Native corporations people see on a regular basis are actually non-profits. The money goes to health care, social services, cultural programs, scholarships and justice programs.
Coca-Cola and Microsoft get major kudos when they give a small percentage of their profit toward college scholarships and building a wing in a hospital. I challenge anyone to look at just how much the for-profit Native corporations have spent on the non-profits - health care, justice, culture, housing, you name it. What's more, they are expected to do this, and little recognition is given, or at least, certainly not the same recognition as a non-Native corporation.
I'm glad they are doing it, and I do expect Native corporations to spend substantial amounts on Native health, welfare and culture. I just hope that people realize these contracts aren't given, and then every Native person in Alaska is walking around with a fortune in Native dividend checks.
To be transparent about my own tie to this, I have received exactly three checks in my life from my corporation - the largest sum was enough to pay two months car insurance, the smallest two tanks of gas. I don't happen to think there's anything so wrong with that - I would rather the shareholder money go toward building up tradtional language programs or funding college (I HAVE earned scholarships, and would prefer those any day!) than paying my bills... Of course, I'm not struggling with outrageous heating costs and children to feed, so I have the freedom to say that.
I'm glad both Sen. Begich and Sen. Murkowski are fighting the good fight on this. Although I'm sure reform is on its way, I have a hope that it will be fair, instead of a retribution, or favoring some other side. Don't know that that is how it will turn out, but with the many voices I've been hearing about in D.C. speaking out about this, and two senators, there's at least a chance... right?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Alaska Native view on Palin resignation... and what's next?
All right, so it's only a little bit of a view, but this Indian Country Today article does a pretty good summation of Native issues and Palin.
But when it comes to Parnell, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska - big ol' question mark. I'm not getting my hopes up that he'll be any better with Native issues, but I've certainly been surprised before.
While I was reading up on this, I spotted another nice little article from a New Mexico Independent blogger taking a vacation in Alaska. It was a pretty interesting view from an outsider looking in on Alaska. If nothing else, I appreciated her setting the record straight on at least one thing:
All right, all right - there was more substantial observations too. But that accent of hers bugs me. I'VE lived in Alaska all my life, and don't know anyone who talks like that!
I would love it if more media and outside commentators spent even a little time in Alaska before talking about us. From most people I've talked to from down south, and my own brief forays to the Lower 48, it IS a very different place.
“To vacate her position early is pretty concerning. It leaves questions about her character – but maybe it will turn out to be a good thing for Alaska Natives.”
But when it comes to Parnell, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska - big ol' question mark. I'm not getting my hopes up that he'll be any better with Native issues, but I've certainly been surprised before.
While I was reading up on this, I spotted another nice little article from a New Mexico Independent blogger taking a vacation in Alaska. It was a pretty interesting view from an outsider looking in on Alaska. If nothing else, I appreciated her setting the record straight on at least one thing:
The people in Wasilla were nice. But as much as I tried, I could not find anyone else who talks all twangy like Gov. Palin. There is no Wasilla accent — that is all her, baby.
All right, all right - there was more substantial observations too. But that accent of hers bugs me. I'VE lived in Alaska all my life, and don't know anyone who talks like that!
I would love it if more media and outside commentators spent even a little time in Alaska before talking about us. From most people I've talked to from down south, and my own brief forays to the Lower 48, it IS a very different place.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Real Native Myths and Legends - Revisited #4
I'm going to be out of Internet access for a few days. I'd like to start revisiting somethig I paused when the Palin stuff came out last fall - "Real Native Myths and Legends." I started it because there's so much stereotyping, misundestandngs and common beliefs about the Native people of Alaska, and America in general. I meant the posts to shed some light, as well as start some conversations, or even some questions. I'm going to do some new posts about this, but first, since it's been so long, I'm going to be reposting the old ones to revisit.
Real Native Myths and Legends #5 - Free money for Natives from Uncle Sam - August 17, 2008
I've heard this one again and again - tons of money from the U.S. government being thrown at Natives for "all their problems." But this kind of comment (from a comment thread) is what keeps cropping up:
Really? Nobody told me about this program (and where can I sign up?)
I think this is a combination of confusion about land held in trust by the government, Native corporations and... well, not knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunately, most of the argument on the other side is, "The government treated them so bad, so don't they deserve it?" It's not about giving one group money because they were treated poorly. At all. There is little understanding of the complex issues here.
Some tribes in the Lower 48 do receive trust money from land agreements between the U.S. government and their individual tribe. This is not the government giving money to the poor, victimized Indians because of past misconduct on behalf of the U.S. It is NOT reparations. It is NOT welfare. I believe some groups in Alaska do as well, though in a different sort of set up.
I must be honest in saying that I do not have first-hand knowledge of land trust/trust fund agreements between the U.S. and tribal governments, simply because it is not at all a part of my life. As far as I can tell, it is not a part of most Alaska Native people's lives either. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act made things very different in Alaska. If the confusion is about Alaska Native corporation money, I responded to that here. In any case, the government is not just handing out money to Native people for no reason.
When it comes to land trust issues, there is still quite a bit wrong with the system. Okay, so that's an understatement. There has been a bit in the news recently about land trusts - mismanagement on the part of the U.S. Nearly 30 years ago, the Saginaw Chippewaw wanted to see about changing their investments, and brought in the president of the First Nations Institute, Rebecca Adamson, to look at it. A memorable quote from when she started looking at their land trust situation:
At a council meeting, she reported back to the tribe as follows:
Now, the ruling 26 years later was that the U.S. government mismanaged the land (Gee, didn't see that one coming...) After various numbers were thrown around in the decades long court battle, a federal judge decided that 121 years of mismangement amounted to an award of $455.6 million. This is where, I think, people hear the numbers, and go, "Wow, they're getting a lot of money from the government!" - discounting that it's not the governments money in the first place.
But there were 500,000 plaintiffs. So 121 years of mismanagement means $455.6 million goes to 500,000 plaintiffs. You do the math on that.
The other assumption of that is that the Indians don't "deserve" the money. It's past - it's history. But pushing aside the fact that this is one of the few cases that the U.S. government is holding to (with fingernails) the treaties agreed upon (read - lawful contracts,) the length of time that has passed isn't (or shouldn't be) a factor in deciding whether it's "really still their land/money" to have a say in. It's not about deserving it or not - it is rightfully theirs. I don't think Paris Hilton "deserves" all her money just because she's a Hilton - but I won't dispute the fact that she lawfully has a right to it.
Using the logic that it's ancient history, can we discount the government's claim to the White House? I mean, they claimed that land hundreds of years ago, and the clearly nomadic lifestyle that the family that lives there every four to eight years means they can't sustain that area, right? Unless the residents can prove they have a right to live there, I'm all for going in and claiming it. Or at least the West Wing.
Yes, it's absurd. It's just as absurd to think that just because something is an historic agreement means it is less valid today. The times I've heard something like, "Just because my ancestor killed your ancestor doesn't mean you should get something better than me."
Well, I've never gotten anything out of that deal, and I would like one person to point out the time that the U.S. government has EVER awarded a profit to a Native person because of the acts of the U.S. government hundreds of years ago. The government hasn't even conceded anything wrong was done in the first place - it isn't ready to start handing out money to make everyone feel better.
The U.S. government did not pay for my car. Or my college education. Or my groceries. In fact, in the awkward relationship between the U.S. government and myself, I've given it a pretty good portion of the money I earn, every paycheck. In return, the government paved the roads and built some schools.
It's an ok deal - I do enjoy being able to drive places, and though public schools are demonized, I thought my experience was pretty good. All I ask is that the government remember the agreements made for the land those roads and schools were built on - and the people the agreements were made with. Then we'll get along just fine.
Real Native Myths and Legends #5 - Free money for Natives from Uncle Sam - August 17, 2008
I've heard this one again and again - tons of money from the U.S. government being thrown at Natives for "all their problems." But this kind of comment (from a comment thread) is what keeps cropping up:
"...if you fill out some forms, prove you are an indian to a certain degree,
each year you get a certain ammount of money from the government."
Really? Nobody told me about this program (and where can I sign up?)
I think this is a combination of confusion about land held in trust by the government, Native corporations and... well, not knowing what they're talking about. Unfortunately, most of the argument on the other side is, "The government treated them so bad, so don't they deserve it?" It's not about giving one group money because they were treated poorly. At all. There is little understanding of the complex issues here.
Some tribes in the Lower 48 do receive trust money from land agreements between the U.S. government and their individual tribe. This is not the government giving money to the poor, victimized Indians because of past misconduct on behalf of the U.S. It is NOT reparations. It is NOT welfare. I believe some groups in Alaska do as well, though in a different sort of set up.
I must be honest in saying that I do not have first-hand knowledge of land trust/trust fund agreements between the U.S. and tribal governments, simply because it is not at all a part of my life. As far as I can tell, it is not a part of most Alaska Native people's lives either. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act made things very different in Alaska. If the confusion is about Alaska Native corporation money, I responded to that here. In any case, the government is not just handing out money to Native people for no reason.
When it comes to land trust issues, there is still quite a bit wrong with the system. Okay, so that's an understatement. There has been a bit in the news recently about land trusts - mismanagement on the part of the U.S. Nearly 30 years ago, the Saginaw Chippewaw wanted to see about changing their investments, and brought in the president of the First Nations Institute, Rebecca Adamson, to look at it. A memorable quote from when she started looking at their land trust situation:
At a council meeting, she reported back to the tribe as follows:
''I have good news and bad news. The good news is, you can do better than the BIA at investing your trust funds. The bad news is, so could a chimpanzee.''
Now, the ruling 26 years later was that the U.S. government mismanaged the land (Gee, didn't see that one coming...) After various numbers were thrown around in the decades long court battle, a federal judge decided that 121 years of mismangement amounted to an award of $455.6 million. This is where, I think, people hear the numbers, and go, "Wow, they're getting a lot of money from the government!" - discounting that it's not the governments money in the first place.
But there were 500,000 plaintiffs. So 121 years of mismanagement means $455.6 million goes to 500,000 plaintiffs. You do the math on that.
The other assumption of that is that the Indians don't "deserve" the money. It's past - it's history. But pushing aside the fact that this is one of the few cases that the U.S. government is holding to (with fingernails) the treaties agreed upon (read - lawful contracts,) the length of time that has passed isn't (or shouldn't be) a factor in deciding whether it's "really still their land/money" to have a say in. It's not about deserving it or not - it is rightfully theirs. I don't think Paris Hilton "deserves" all her money just because she's a Hilton - but I won't dispute the fact that she lawfully has a right to it.
Using the logic that it's ancient history, can we discount the government's claim to the White House? I mean, they claimed that land hundreds of years ago, and the clearly nomadic lifestyle that the family that lives there every four to eight years means they can't sustain that area, right? Unless the residents can prove they have a right to live there, I'm all for going in and claiming it. Or at least the West Wing.
Yes, it's absurd. It's just as absurd to think that just because something is an historic agreement means it is less valid today. The times I've heard something like, "Just because my ancestor killed your ancestor doesn't mean you should get something better than me."
Well, I've never gotten anything out of that deal, and I would like one person to point out the time that the U.S. government has EVER awarded a profit to a Native person because of the acts of the U.S. government hundreds of years ago. The government hasn't even conceded anything wrong was done in the first place - it isn't ready to start handing out money to make everyone feel better.
The U.S. government did not pay for my car. Or my college education. Or my groceries. In fact, in the awkward relationship between the U.S. government and myself, I've given it a pretty good portion of the money I earn, every paycheck. In return, the government paved the roads and built some schools.
It's an ok deal - I do enjoy being able to drive places, and though public schools are demonized, I thought my experience was pretty good. All I ask is that the government remember the agreements made for the land those roads and schools were built on - and the people the agreements were made with. Then we'll get along just fine.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Real Native Myths and Legends - Revisited #3
I'm going to be out of Internet access for a few days. I'd like to start revisiting somethig I paused when the Palin stuff came out last fall - "Real Native Myths and Legends." I started it because there's so much stereotyping, misundestandngs and common beliefs about the Native people of Alaska, and America in general. I meant the posts to shed some light, as well as start some conversations, or even some questions. I'm going to do some new posts about this, but first, since it's been so long, I'm going to be reposting the old ones to revisit.
Real Native Myths and Legends #4 - Indians and Eskimos - August 12, 2008
Indian. Eskimo. Native American. Tribe. Clan. People group. FirstNations. First Peoples. American Indian. Indigenous.
It's dang confusing sometimes, I know, and I've grown up with allthese terms. I have some sympathy for every (non-Native) friend I'veever had who has worked up to (usually unsure of how to approach it)asking me, "So… what do you call yourself?"
There are actually many different forms of this question, but it boilsdown to, "How on earth do I say what you are?" I know there are thosewho will argue we should be "color-blind" and not look at a person'sculture. I disagree. I think we should honor and celebrate a person'sculture, we would be robbing them of a huge part of who they are notto – we just don't have to judge a person by their culture. It's alsojust a reality – having to define someone's background is not goinganywhere.
Kind of reminds me of a discussion I had about this topic in highschool, and my "African-American" friend was asked how to address hisrace. He said, "We're 'Black' now. But I'll let you know if itchanges."
If you ask the government, they would consider me from the "Indian"people group (as opposed to "Eskimo" or "Aleut". On a federal documentI am "American Indian or Alaska Native." On my Certificate of IndianBlood, I am from the Tlingit "tribe."
If you ask me, I will tell you I am Tlingit or Alaska Native,depending on where I am and who you are. I will not say the Tlingittribe – no such thing. There's also no "Tlingit Nation". I won't tell you I am Indian – as far as I'm concerned, Indians are from India. Iwon't tell you I'm Native American, and I won't tell you what tribe I'm from – as far as I know, I have no tribe.
Much of the problem stems from trying to group an entire continent'sworth of culture into one identifiable group. Even here in Alaska, thecultures are incredibly diverse. I have a Yup'ik friend that I share values and experiences with as an Alaska Native woman, but when itcomes to so many other cultural values, she seems to be speakinganother language (though, often times, she quite literally IS speakinganother language.)
There is also the problem of Native people only just being able todefine how they were called by the general public in the lastgeneration or two, and so it seems quite changeable, and no two peopleagree on the perfect way yet.
Last year at the World Eskimo Indian Olympics (WEIO,) one of theassistants came to get our dance group, "We need the Indian groups!" Adozen sets of furrowed brows and he quickly answered, "Hey, if I haveto be Eskimo, you have to be Indian!" Fair enough. Point is, even ourown institutions are outdated in the terms we use.
But all the background and why and how aside, there still remains theissue of, "What do I call you?"
The simplest answer I can say is, "Just ask."
I have often wondered if this is not a very "polite" thing to do outside of Alaska Native cultures. Maybe the sensitivities of being PC or a Western etiquette – but generally when I am asked it is with anembarrassed tone, usually an apology. A "I'm sorry if this is rude, but…" Recently, a friend of mine described a non-Native woman who was offended when a Native woman asked her race.
Although I am generally loathe to group such diverse cultures into one"group think," my own experiences in my culture and other Nativecultures in the state is that the first thing you want to do is get toknow someone's background. As an example, a dialogue of me meeting another Native person:
"Nice to meet you – so where are you from?"
"Akiachak."
"That by Fairbanks?"
"Bethel area."
"Cool – you know John James?"
"Yeah, he's my cousin."
"Sweet."
And we switch. I threw in my own lack of geographical awareness inthere for realism. But basically, I now know where he's from (and can deduce his 'people group' from that,) and who his general family is.
Actually, if it were really real, we would find out all the differentpeople we know and/or are related to in common. Many times we will askand talk directly about what racial background we are from.
In short, the "polite" or friendly thing to do in the culture I know is to introduce and let your own background be known. Many Native people who are born in urban areas will identify themselves as being"from" whatever village or rural area their family is from. I was delighted to meet a man "from Klawock" last Summer, very near where I was born, but then he said, "Oh – but I've never been there." I have a feeling as more and more Native people are born in Anchorage, thiswill become even more common.
I believe the Tlingit people have elevated introductions to an art. My Yup'ik friend is fond of telling me that "Tlingits complicateeverything!" Maybe true, but there are some pretty solid reasons behind it.
Do you know that scene in "Lord of the Rings," where the trees are talking amongst themselves all day, and when they finally talk to the Hobbits, you find they've only just introduced themselves? I believethat this must have been based off of a traditional Tlingit celebration. You introduce pretty much your whole background andgenealogy. Basically, when I begin my speech, you should know my name(or names,) my parents, my teachers, my grandparents and great-grandparents, my moiety, clan and sub-clans, where I am from –or my family is from, and where I live now. And that's the short version.
Although I cannot tell you what all Native people would like to bereferred to as – even between my siblings and I this would vary – I can tell you it doesn't hurt to ask. Of course, basic politeness applies here too. I don't suggest a "So what's your racial make-up?"or questions at times that would be ethically inappropriate - job interview anyone?
A few tips:
-Start with asking where they are from. It wouldn't hurt if you knew(in general) where people groups were from.
- Don't ask anyone if they are "Eskimo." Really. I mean it. The few people who are okay with being identified by others as such will let you know in good time, but this will lose you more respect than it will gain. And don't assume because one person of that background prefers to be called "Eskimo" the next is. A friend and I will joke around, calling each other "Eskimo" and "Indian," but I made a mistake thinking I could joke like that with another coworker - she did NOT appreciate being called Eskimo, although from the same background as my friend.
- As an Alaska Native person, the above also applies to the word "Indian." From what I understand, in the Lower 48 this can be a pretty common identifier, but not so popular up here.
- Don't attach a "tribe," "clan," "nation" or other grouping word when asking. I get asked a lot if I am from the Tlingit tribe, or what tribe I am from. Federally, this is correct. There are people groups in the U.S. which embrace the word. But no Tlingit person I know identifies themselves this way. Likewise, there is no Tlingit clan. I DO belong to a clan, as well as a house and a moiety, but the same will not be true of every Alaska Native culture.
Basically, just see how the person identifies themselves, and treat them with respect. You do not have to do things "traditionally" - most Native people do not address or introduce traditionally, unless in a formal setting, and do not expect that of you. But to "gain friendsand influence Native people," showing a respect for their individuality as a person, and within a culture, will go far.
Real Native Myths and Legends #4 - Indians and Eskimos - August 12, 2008
Indian. Eskimo. Native American. Tribe. Clan. People group. FirstNations. First Peoples. American Indian. Indigenous.
It's dang confusing sometimes, I know, and I've grown up with allthese terms. I have some sympathy for every (non-Native) friend I'veever had who has worked up to (usually unsure of how to approach it)asking me, "So… what do you call yourself?"
There are actually many different forms of this question, but it boilsdown to, "How on earth do I say what you are?" I know there are thosewho will argue we should be "color-blind" and not look at a person'sculture. I disagree. I think we should honor and celebrate a person'sculture, we would be robbing them of a huge part of who they are notto – we just don't have to judge a person by their culture. It's alsojust a reality – having to define someone's background is not goinganywhere.
Kind of reminds me of a discussion I had about this topic in highschool, and my "African-American" friend was asked how to address hisrace. He said, "We're 'Black' now. But I'll let you know if itchanges."
If you ask the government, they would consider me from the "Indian"people group (as opposed to "Eskimo" or "Aleut". On a federal documentI am "American Indian or Alaska Native." On my Certificate of IndianBlood, I am from the Tlingit "tribe."
If you ask me, I will tell you I am Tlingit or Alaska Native,depending on where I am and who you are. I will not say the Tlingittribe – no such thing. There's also no "Tlingit Nation". I won't tell you I am Indian – as far as I'm concerned, Indians are from India. Iwon't tell you I'm Native American, and I won't tell you what tribe I'm from – as far as I know, I have no tribe.
Much of the problem stems from trying to group an entire continent'sworth of culture into one identifiable group. Even here in Alaska, thecultures are incredibly diverse. I have a Yup'ik friend that I share values and experiences with as an Alaska Native woman, but when itcomes to so many other cultural values, she seems to be speakinganother language (though, often times, she quite literally IS speakinganother language.)
There is also the problem of Native people only just being able todefine how they were called by the general public in the lastgeneration or two, and so it seems quite changeable, and no two peopleagree on the perfect way yet.
Last year at the World Eskimo Indian Olympics (WEIO,) one of theassistants came to get our dance group, "We need the Indian groups!" Adozen sets of furrowed brows and he quickly answered, "Hey, if I haveto be Eskimo, you have to be Indian!" Fair enough. Point is, even ourown institutions are outdated in the terms we use.
But all the background and why and how aside, there still remains theissue of, "What do I call you?"
The simplest answer I can say is, "Just ask."
I have often wondered if this is not a very "polite" thing to do outside of Alaska Native cultures. Maybe the sensitivities of being PC or a Western etiquette – but generally when I am asked it is with anembarrassed tone, usually an apology. A "I'm sorry if this is rude, but…" Recently, a friend of mine described a non-Native woman who was offended when a Native woman asked her race.
Although I am generally loathe to group such diverse cultures into one"group think," my own experiences in my culture and other Nativecultures in the state is that the first thing you want to do is get toknow someone's background. As an example, a dialogue of me meeting another Native person:
"Nice to meet you – so where are you from?"
"Akiachak."
"That by Fairbanks?"
"Bethel area."
"Cool – you know John James?"
"Yeah, he's my cousin."
"Sweet."
And we switch. I threw in my own lack of geographical awareness inthere for realism. But basically, I now know where he's from (and can deduce his 'people group' from that,) and who his general family is.
Actually, if it were really real, we would find out all the differentpeople we know and/or are related to in common. Many times we will askand talk directly about what racial background we are from.
In short, the "polite" or friendly thing to do in the culture I know is to introduce and let your own background be known. Many Native people who are born in urban areas will identify themselves as being"from" whatever village or rural area their family is from. I was delighted to meet a man "from Klawock" last Summer, very near where I was born, but then he said, "Oh – but I've never been there." I have a feeling as more and more Native people are born in Anchorage, thiswill become even more common.
I believe the Tlingit people have elevated introductions to an art. My Yup'ik friend is fond of telling me that "Tlingits complicateeverything!" Maybe true, but there are some pretty solid reasons behind it.
Do you know that scene in "Lord of the Rings," where the trees are talking amongst themselves all day, and when they finally talk to the Hobbits, you find they've only just introduced themselves? I believethat this must have been based off of a traditional Tlingit celebration. You introduce pretty much your whole background andgenealogy. Basically, when I begin my speech, you should know my name(or names,) my parents, my teachers, my grandparents and great-grandparents, my moiety, clan and sub-clans, where I am from –or my family is from, and where I live now. And that's the short version.
Although I cannot tell you what all Native people would like to bereferred to as – even between my siblings and I this would vary – I can tell you it doesn't hurt to ask. Of course, basic politeness applies here too. I don't suggest a "So what's your racial make-up?"or questions at times that would be ethically inappropriate - job interview anyone?
A few tips:
-Start with asking where they are from. It wouldn't hurt if you knew(in general) where people groups were from.
- Don't ask anyone if they are "Eskimo." Really. I mean it. The few people who are okay with being identified by others as such will let you know in good time, but this will lose you more respect than it will gain. And don't assume because one person of that background prefers to be called "Eskimo" the next is. A friend and I will joke around, calling each other "Eskimo" and "Indian," but I made a mistake thinking I could joke like that with another coworker - she did NOT appreciate being called Eskimo, although from the same background as my friend.
- As an Alaska Native person, the above also applies to the word "Indian." From what I understand, in the Lower 48 this can be a pretty common identifier, but not so popular up here.
- Don't attach a "tribe," "clan," "nation" or other grouping word when asking. I get asked a lot if I am from the Tlingit tribe, or what tribe I am from. Federally, this is correct. There are people groups in the U.S. which embrace the word. But no Tlingit person I know identifies themselves this way. Likewise, there is no Tlingit clan. I DO belong to a clan, as well as a house and a moiety, but the same will not be true of every Alaska Native culture.
Basically, just see how the person identifies themselves, and treat them with respect. You do not have to do things "traditionally" - most Native people do not address or introduce traditionally, unless in a formal setting, and do not expect that of you. But to "gain friendsand influence Native people," showing a respect for their individuality as a person, and within a culture, will go far.
Real Native Myths and Legends - Revisited #2
I'm going to be out of Internet access for a few days. I'd like to start revisiting somethig I paused when the Palin stuff came out last fall - "Real Native Myths and Legends." I started it because there's so much stereotyping, misundestandngs and common beliefs about the Native people of Alaska, and America in general. I meant the posts to shed some light, as well as start some conversations, or even some questions. I'm going to do some new posts about this, but first, since it's been so long, I'm going to be reposting the old ones to revisit.
Real Alaska Native Myths and Legends #3 - What's a "traditional" Native? - July 30, 2008
The news about the slaughtered caribou brought out the usual - anti-Native hate, calls for an end to subsistence and "special rights", I don't know how many upstanding citizens dragging alcohol into the mix - something not mentioned in the case thus far, except by those spewing ignorance.
But one thing always gets brought up eventually, and that is the idea that "if they want to be traditional, then they need to go back to bows and arrows." One less enlightened man a few weeks ago put it as needing to go back to "making fires out of caribou dung."
Now, I will confess something. This is something that many Native people struggle with. There are many expectations about what you should be as a Native person, from without and within.
Be traditional - not "too traditional" - assimilate already! - just be "American" - why don't you dress in buckskin?
Some of the irony of the situation is that from the non-Native crowd, there is a constant mixed message. Native corporations are the most open to vicious attack for their successes - how dare they succeed? Yet corporations are the government requirement, not the Native neccessity. Hate comments about "needing to go back to the village" can be soon followed by "if things are so tough in the village, then move out!" Even the well-intentioned, friends and colleagues, can encourage this sort of dichotomy by having expectations about what a Native person should be, versus what they are.
But this kind of confusion is not something exclusive to non-Natives. This is maybe most confusing within the community. Be proud of your culture! But be more American this way... Learn your language! But don't think you're better just because you can. How come you don't know your culture? But your Western education should come first.
It's not always as clear cut as saying it so, as few few things are. It can be as subtle as a supervisor asking a group of us what we would do if an Elder gave us a very expensive gift at work. My look of panic was not the only one. You don't dare refuse a gift from an Elder! But this is not Western corporation practices.
The idea that you must succeed in two worlds is not new, nor is it going to go away anytime soon. But we can get rid of this cut and dry vision of what it means to be a "traditional" Native person.
It does not mean going back to "bow and arrow" days. If this is what someone really wants, it goes both ways. Not every great invention came from the Western mind. In fact, I'll make the next person who says this to me a deal - I will start encouraging the "old days," no snowmachines, no rifles, no electric heat - if they will fulfill two requests. Two requests for a whole lifestyle here, it's a good deal.
First, the agricultural products that we had in the "old days" are our and our alone. That means we own the patent/license/whatever to tomatoes, potatoes, turkey, rubber, chocolate! No Hershey's syrup. No peanut butter and jelly, because no peanuts. And it might literally mean the shirt off their back, because no cotton.
Second, if we don't receive the benefit of Western invention, we take back the benefit of our invention. Here in Alaska alone, that means no kayaks, snowshoes, moccasins. Not to mention popcorn.
Now, this isn't a serious claim, it is only meant to highlight the absurdity of demanding people "turn back the clock". I don't want to take back tomatoes (especially since the Tlingit and Athabascan people didn't have a lot to do with that) and I don't think that my wanting to honor my traditions means I need to do away with the Internet.
Bottom line is, the learning and invention and benefit went both ways. We were not a "primitive" people, who would never have survived without Western intervention. But the history of American would be much changed - in fact quite a bit briefer - with the knowledge and skill of the "First Peoples."
As to what a good "traditional" Native person is, the minute you spot one, let me know. The most honorable, respectful Native people I know drive cars and speak English as good or better than traditional languages. It is their drive to keep traditional lines open, to remember the values of ancient times and apply them to a modern world that makes me - and others - admire and respect them.
Our ancestors did not sit and dream of a world in which everything stayed exactly the same (despite some TV movies that say otherwise). They were innovators themselves. They dreamed of children, and grandchildren, and grandchildren's grandchildren that were healthy, that knew the Earth for what it was and respected it, that treated others with respect due to them. And this is how we respect them - by pursuing just that, fighting for it, expecting and hoping that it will come.
Real Alaska Native Myths and Legends #3 - What's a "traditional" Native? - July 30, 2008
The news about the slaughtered caribou brought out the usual - anti-Native hate, calls for an end to subsistence and "special rights", I don't know how many upstanding citizens dragging alcohol into the mix - something not mentioned in the case thus far, except by those spewing ignorance.
But one thing always gets brought up eventually, and that is the idea that "if they want to be traditional, then they need to go back to bows and arrows." One less enlightened man a few weeks ago put it as needing to go back to "making fires out of caribou dung."
Now, I will confess something. This is something that many Native people struggle with. There are many expectations about what you should be as a Native person, from without and within.
Be traditional - not "too traditional" - assimilate already! - just be "American" - why don't you dress in buckskin?
Some of the irony of the situation is that from the non-Native crowd, there is a constant mixed message. Native corporations are the most open to vicious attack for their successes - how dare they succeed? Yet corporations are the government requirement, not the Native neccessity. Hate comments about "needing to go back to the village" can be soon followed by "if things are so tough in the village, then move out!" Even the well-intentioned, friends and colleagues, can encourage this sort of dichotomy by having expectations about what a Native person should be, versus what they are.
But this kind of confusion is not something exclusive to non-Natives. This is maybe most confusing within the community. Be proud of your culture! But be more American this way... Learn your language! But don't think you're better just because you can. How come you don't know your culture? But your Western education should come first.
It's not always as clear cut as saying it so, as few few things are. It can be as subtle as a supervisor asking a group of us what we would do if an Elder gave us a very expensive gift at work. My look of panic was not the only one. You don't dare refuse a gift from an Elder! But this is not Western corporation practices.
The idea that you must succeed in two worlds is not new, nor is it going to go away anytime soon. But we can get rid of this cut and dry vision of what it means to be a "traditional" Native person.
It does not mean going back to "bow and arrow" days. If this is what someone really wants, it goes both ways. Not every great invention came from the Western mind. In fact, I'll make the next person who says this to me a deal - I will start encouraging the "old days," no snowmachines, no rifles, no electric heat - if they will fulfill two requests. Two requests for a whole lifestyle here, it's a good deal.
First, the agricultural products that we had in the "old days" are our and our alone. That means we own the patent/license/whatever to tomatoes, potatoes, turkey, rubber, chocolate! No Hershey's syrup. No peanut butter and jelly, because no peanuts. And it might literally mean the shirt off their back, because no cotton.
Second, if we don't receive the benefit of Western invention, we take back the benefit of our invention. Here in Alaska alone, that means no kayaks, snowshoes, moccasins. Not to mention popcorn.
Now, this isn't a serious claim, it is only meant to highlight the absurdity of demanding people "turn back the clock". I don't want to take back tomatoes (especially since the Tlingit and Athabascan people didn't have a lot to do with that) and I don't think that my wanting to honor my traditions means I need to do away with the Internet.
Bottom line is, the learning and invention and benefit went both ways. We were not a "primitive" people, who would never have survived without Western intervention. But the history of American would be much changed - in fact quite a bit briefer - with the knowledge and skill of the "First Peoples."
As to what a good "traditional" Native person is, the minute you spot one, let me know. The most honorable, respectful Native people I know drive cars and speak English as good or better than traditional languages. It is their drive to keep traditional lines open, to remember the values of ancient times and apply them to a modern world that makes me - and others - admire and respect them.
Our ancestors did not sit and dream of a world in which everything stayed exactly the same (despite some TV movies that say otherwise). They were innovators themselves. They dreamed of children, and grandchildren, and grandchildren's grandchildren that were healthy, that knew the Earth for what it was and respected it, that treated others with respect due to them. And this is how we respect them - by pursuing just that, fighting for it, expecting and hoping that it will come.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Real Native Myths and Legends - Revisited
I'm going to be out of Internet access for a few days. I'd like to start revisiting somethig I paused when the Palin stuff came out last fall - "Real Native Myths and Legends." I started it because there's so much stereotyping, misundestandngs and common beliefs about the Native people of Alaska, and America in general. I meant the posts to shed some light, as well as start some conversations, or even some questions. I'm going to do some new posts about this, but first, since it's been so long, I'm going to be reposting the old ones to revisit.
Real Native Myths and Legends #2 - Native Corporation Dividends - July 27, 2008
The first of this series is a pretty easy one to answer. Do all Alaska Native people receive big checks from Native corporations?
In a word - no.
And I'd like to add, if this were true, the college loan office wouldn't be calling quite so much.
All the background about why these corporations exist in the first place is incredibly rich and complicated, and most Native people my age don't know half of the history, much less the general public. I took a semester long class on the subject, and we barely scratched the surface. But here's an attempt at boiling a huge, generations-long battle into a few sentences:
The 12 original regional corporations were created in 1971, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA.) The act is what it sounds like, the settlement of Alaska Native Land Claims, although that's a much tighter package to wrap it in than what it encompasses.
Every Alaska Native person born before the act was passed in 1971, and met the qualifying amount of Native blood, was eligible to apply as a corporation shareholder. All those born after the date (like yours truly) can not be original shareholders, and (until last year) could only receive shares through inheritance or gifts. The original funds were a legal exchange between Alaska Native people and the government, payment for land. The corporations invested in many different ways. Now, all the regional corporations - there are now 13 - as well as the dozens of village corporations, have different ways of distributing dividends, if they get one at all.
But I can gaurantee one thing - very, very few corporations are distributing big checks. And ALL of what any shareholder may receive is dependant on how the corporation operated during the year. If they invest well, the shareholders do well. If they do poorly, you see my point...
This is not an attempt to rehash what you might know, but it is an extremely common question, or assumption, about Native people and corporation checks.
Did I leave anything out?
Real Native Myths and Legends #1 - July 26, 2008
Some conversations lately have led me to begin a series on "real Native myths and legends." I don't mean the kind of "myths" that are actually historical and spiritual stories. I mean the common misunderstandings, fictions, or just plain ignorance about Native people and culture. Some of the misunderstandings Native people believe.
For instance, what is the real situation of the "Native alcoholism problem?" Do Natives really get free health care? What makes a Native person "traditional?" Why is subsistence such a big deal? Does every Native person get a bunch of money from the corporations? For that matter, do they all get a bunch from the government?
Some of them are really just questions of cross-cultural communication. I was speaking with a friend recently, about a coworker of hers that was upset over something a Native man had said, she felt it was extremely rude. When we heard about it, it was easy for us to see he was actually being very formally polite, it was a total cultural difference.
In any case, beginning tommorrow, I would like to begin addressing many of these issues. Now, I don't mean all of what I say is what "all Native people think" - that's an unrealistic spot to put anyone in. But many of these issues just aren't addressed in print, and many times they can make it uncomfortable to ask about.All that being said, I hope people will post or e-mail their questions, comments and opinions.
Real Native Myths and Legends #2 - Native Corporation Dividends - July 27, 2008
The first of this series is a pretty easy one to answer. Do all Alaska Native people receive big checks from Native corporations?
In a word - no.
And I'd like to add, if this were true, the college loan office wouldn't be calling quite so much.
All the background about why these corporations exist in the first place is incredibly rich and complicated, and most Native people my age don't know half of the history, much less the general public. I took a semester long class on the subject, and we barely scratched the surface. But here's an attempt at boiling a huge, generations-long battle into a few sentences:
The 12 original regional corporations were created in 1971, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA.) The act is what it sounds like, the settlement of Alaska Native Land Claims, although that's a much tighter package to wrap it in than what it encompasses.
Every Alaska Native person born before the act was passed in 1971, and met the qualifying amount of Native blood, was eligible to apply as a corporation shareholder. All those born after the date (like yours truly) can not be original shareholders, and (until last year) could only receive shares through inheritance or gifts. The original funds were a legal exchange between Alaska Native people and the government, payment for land. The corporations invested in many different ways. Now, all the regional corporations - there are now 13 - as well as the dozens of village corporations, have different ways of distributing dividends, if they get one at all.
But I can gaurantee one thing - very, very few corporations are distributing big checks. And ALL of what any shareholder may receive is dependant on how the corporation operated during the year. If they invest well, the shareholders do well. If they do poorly, you see my point...
This is not an attempt to rehash what you might know, but it is an extremely common question, or assumption, about Native people and corporation checks.
Did I leave anything out?
Real Native Myths and Legends #1 - July 26, 2008
Some conversations lately have led me to begin a series on "real Native myths and legends." I don't mean the kind of "myths" that are actually historical and spiritual stories. I mean the common misunderstandings, fictions, or just plain ignorance about Native people and culture. Some of the misunderstandings Native people believe.
For instance, what is the real situation of the "Native alcoholism problem?" Do Natives really get free health care? What makes a Native person "traditional?" Why is subsistence such a big deal? Does every Native person get a bunch of money from the corporations? For that matter, do they all get a bunch from the government?
Some of them are really just questions of cross-cultural communication. I was speaking with a friend recently, about a coworker of hers that was upset over something a Native man had said, she felt it was extremely rude. When we heard about it, it was easy for us to see he was actually being very formally polite, it was a total cultural difference.
In any case, beginning tommorrow, I would like to begin addressing many of these issues. Now, I don't mean all of what I say is what "all Native people think" - that's an unrealistic spot to put anyone in. But many of these issues just aren't addressed in print, and many times they can make it uncomfortable to ask about.All that being said, I hope people will post or e-mail their questions, comments and opinions.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Native people may have shown up a little earlier to the party
Found this pretty interesting piece a few days ago in Indian Country Today:
Oral tradition is disounted so much of the time, but it is interesting to me that so many times science proves oral tradition correct. The Tlingit people have a history that tells of our people not originally being from the Southeast area, coming from more northern/eastern areas. Thousands of years after the Tlingit began telling this "myth," science showed this to be true.
In an anthropology class, I was amazed to discover how much of what is discovered in archeology must be supposed, gaps filled in. Of course there are solid facts and science, but the further back you go, the more you have to fill in the lack of evidence.
In any case, it will be interested to see what comes of this. As the article says, it is quite controversial, and history and science books would have to be re-written a bit, but the truth is usually worth that. I always hope that scientists will take things like oral tradition a little more seriously, too. Although it may not be "fact," it is shown again and again to be a pretty good guide.
Scholars are pushing evidence of human habitation in North America well beyond the non-Native accepted wisdom that places it at a relatively recent 13,000 to 14,000 years ago...
A perhaps-controversial 33,000 years ago, “and probably long before that,” people lived here, according to Steven R. Holen...
Several scientists, me included, are producing evidence of a much older Native American occupation of the continent,” he said...
Oral tradition is disounted so much of the time, but it is interesting to me that so many times science proves oral tradition correct. The Tlingit people have a history that tells of our people not originally being from the Southeast area, coming from more northern/eastern areas. Thousands of years after the Tlingit began telling this "myth," science showed this to be true.
In an anthropology class, I was amazed to discover how much of what is discovered in archeology must be supposed, gaps filled in. Of course there are solid facts and science, but the further back you go, the more you have to fill in the lack of evidence.
In any case, it will be interested to see what comes of this. As the article says, it is quite controversial, and history and science books would have to be re-written a bit, but the truth is usually worth that. I always hope that scientists will take things like oral tradition a little more seriously, too. Although it may not be "fact," it is shown again and again to be a pretty good guide.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Obama, Palin, and other Native news
For as much as I probably won't even know who the guy or gal is, I've been biting (proverbial, at least) nails to find out who Barack Obama will appoint as his senior Native American policy advisor.
After a tip from the overworked Dennis Zaki, I was happy to discover Michelle Obama confirming that the appointment will take place soon - in the next few weeks.
From RezNet:
Obama to name top advisor on Indian issues
and from Indian Country Today, the announcement of another historic appointment:
Standing Rock Sioux member gets key White House post
I was also appalled that I had neglected to read Indian Country Today for some time, my favorite Native news site. I found lots of interesting nuggets, including one bright, shiny one about Palin:
Palin candidacy shone light on Alaska Native issues
I was, at first, ready to take umbrage against the inference here. WTF? Palin didn't shine nuttin' on nobody but herself, especially not Native people! But then I READ the article. It helps sometimes.
It goes over the sort of talking points Palin had, but then gets into the real issue - Palin never addressed "Native issues" in the remotest sense of the phrase, excepting the negative impact she had on subsistence issues. The front the campaign wanted to show about how "forward" they were on Native issues was paper thin:
I wish the article was about ten times longer, to really get into it, but it presented a quick scope of just how much of the talk is... well, talk.
Uh, yeah.
Although I think, no matter the numbers, an executive should pay attention to everyone on their watch, I might remind you of a few numbers. America is roughly 1% Native American/Alaska Native, and Obama is doing pretty good in his first few weeks of office. Alaska is 20% Alaska Native, and in over 2 years its been cold shoulder after cold shoulder.
Another bit about Obama and his inaugural address.
"Words matter"
Let me be clear on this one - I do NOT agree with the arguments raised by the statement Obama made in his inaugural address, that he was somehow referencing Native tribal lines when he was talking about tribal lines coming down. I also do not subscribe to statements such as:
Bleh. No, don't agree at all. I understand the arguments, but if I could have, I would have been in D.C. on Feb. 20, freezing my butt off, waving my American flag proudly. I was a little disappointed he didn't mention Native Americans again in his address, but (unless I'm wrong?) he didn't really address race. He addressed FAITH when he talked about Christians and Muslims, etc., but I don't know that race or nationality (other than the obvious) was addressed. I was pretty please with his earlier mentions of Native Americans, such as election night. I also think they're reading something into the mention/nonmention that's a little out there.
ICT also had an opinion piece addressing the inclusion of $2.8 billion for tribes. Woohoo! I think the author worded it well:
Go us!
It really does feel like this - anything is possible.
And speaking of all that "hope" and "change" jazz, I hope you're keeping up on the updates about Emmonak and Dennis Zaki's footage that's been looping through CNN, even the CNN front page, where it was the most popular story of the day! I couldn't word it better than Mudflat's post, so I'm just going to direct you there, and leave a little byte of hers (okay, so it's a LONG byte, but it's GOOD!):
After a tip from the overworked Dennis Zaki, I was happy to discover Michelle Obama confirming that the appointment will take place soon - in the next few weeks.
From RezNet:
Obama to name top advisor on Indian issues
and from Indian Country Today, the announcement of another historic appointment:
Standing Rock Sioux member gets key White House post
The White House announced Feb. 6 that Jodi Archambault Gillette has been named as one of three deputy associate directors of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. It is a historic appointment, as no other American Indian is believed to have ever held the position.
I was also appalled that I had neglected to read Indian Country Today for some time, my favorite Native news site. I found lots of interesting nuggets, including one bright, shiny one about Palin:
Palin candidacy shone light on Alaska Native issues
I was, at first, ready to take umbrage against the inference here. WTF? Palin didn't shine nuttin' on nobody but herself, especially not Native people! But then I READ the article. It helps sometimes.
It goes over the sort of talking points Palin had, but then gets into the real issue - Palin never addressed "Native issues" in the remotest sense of the phrase, excepting the negative impact she had on subsistence issues. The front the campaign wanted to show about how "forward" they were on Native issues was paper thin:
But soon came the other side of the story. ICT reported in mid-September that Democratic Natives in the state were raising allegations that Palin’s leadership has been harmful to Alaska Native subsistence fishing and hunting, tribal sovereignty and Alaska Native languages.
I wish the article was about ten times longer, to really get into it, but it presented a quick scope of just how much of the talk is... well, talk.
Palin never substantially addressed the issues in the press, and, in the end, even some former American Indian supporters of Palin were not swayed by arguments that she is pro-Alaska Native.
Uh, yeah.
Although I think, no matter the numbers, an executive should pay attention to everyone on their watch, I might remind you of a few numbers. America is roughly 1% Native American/Alaska Native, and Obama is doing pretty good in his first few weeks of office. Alaska is 20% Alaska Native, and in over 2 years its been cold shoulder after cold shoulder.
Another bit about Obama and his inaugural address.
"Words matter"
Let me be clear on this one - I do NOT agree with the arguments raised by the statement Obama made in his inaugural address, that he was somehow referencing Native tribal lines when he was talking about tribal lines coming down. I also do not subscribe to statements such as:
“Indigenous populations should be offended by this, just as we should be offended by the celebration of American patriotism exhibited during the inaugural festivities, and just as we should be offended by his recent denial of America as a colonial empire.”
Bleh. No, don't agree at all. I understand the arguments, but if I could have, I would have been in D.C. on Feb. 20, freezing my butt off, waving my American flag proudly. I was a little disappointed he didn't mention Native Americans again in his address, but (unless I'm wrong?) he didn't really address race. He addressed FAITH when he talked about Christians and Muslims, etc., but I don't know that race or nationality (other than the obvious) was addressed. I was pretty please with his earlier mentions of Native Americans, such as election night. I also think they're reading something into the mention/nonmention that's a little out there.
ICT also had an opinion piece addressing the inclusion of $2.8 billion for tribes. Woohoo! I think the author worded it well:
I have to admit I didn’t believe federal legislators would seriously consider including tribes in the bailout package, but the fact that they have speaks to the sea of change that has occurred in American politics.
This is new territory for Native people, a land of opportunity we had all but given up on as myth.
Like a freshly sober alcoholic who’s lived too long devoid of hope, I’m still waiting for the rug to be pulled out from under me. But I’m fighting to suspend my disbelief and have some faith that change is on the horizon.
Go us!
It really does feel like this - anything is possible.
And speaking of all that "hope" and "change" jazz, I hope you're keeping up on the updates about Emmonak and Dennis Zaki's footage that's been looping through CNN, even the CNN front page, where it was the most popular story of the day! I couldn't word it better than Mudflat's post, so I'm just going to direct you there, and leave a little byte of hers (okay, so it's a LONG byte, but it's GOOD!):
But this state has proven that we can rally without the help of our Chief Executive. Alaska is not defined by the person sitting at the helm, alone. Alaska and its people have many friends inside and outside of the state who use the tools they have, to do what they can. Cold hungry children do not care about political parties, or whether it will look like someone is promoting government handouts which might hurt their conservative image on the 2012 campaign trail. They are just cold and hungry. And not all bloggers are sitting in their parents basements in pajamas making up stories. Some of them have done more to help those cold hungry children than their governor.
I am glad that most of the bloggers who have been championing this cause are
progressive. And I’m glad Rep. Jay Ramras is a conservative. I’m glad that churches are getting involved. I’m glad that those without religious affiliation are getting involved. This is what bipartisanship looks like. This is our ‘team of rivals’. This is what happens when people stop thinking about politics and start thinking about people.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Alaska village "non-emergency" emergency
"I sit on a man’s back choking him and making him carry me. Yet, I assure myself and others that I am sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all possible means — except by getting off his back."
That quote will become more clear at the bottom of this post.
Just a few of the dozens and dozens of reports, articles, letters and highlights just this year about the certainty that a Rural energy crisis was going to happen. Although it truly is an emergency right now, you might call it the slowest building emergency ever. This was not the result of earthquakes or natural disasters - people saw this coming ten miles away.
From late December, a story in Indian Country Today. The article itself is about the impending energy crisis in Rural Alaska and the people who have spoken out about it, including Begich, Comeau, Murkowski and... oh yeah - the entire Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) convention! The reporter notes that:
AND
The mayor's office they are referring to here is (now) Sen. Begich, not the current, acting mayor.
The Anchorage Daily News on AFN wanting a Rural energy emergency declared back in October, as well as an article from last summer, in which Native leaders are urging the state to action on the (already present) energy problems. The solutions offered by the leadership in the summer article were, quite obviously, ignored. I can only hope they don't continue to be. Sen. Murkowski held a hearing in Bethel to discuss the outmigration because of the Rural energy crisis back in August:
The Bristol Bay Times reported on these "rural residents" calling for help - they wanted the state to declare an energy emergency back in May:
The "energy solution" they mention Palin announing in the article was the $1200 Palin pushed for Alaskans - already being called too little, too late for Rural residents when it was first introduced. Of course, we now know how true the detractors were now.
Even USA Today got in on the news, reporting on the oncoming fuel shortage, as barges weren't making it in:
That quote will become more clear at the bottom of this post.
Just a few of the dozens and dozens of reports, articles, letters and highlights just this year about the certainty that a Rural energy crisis was going to happen. Although it truly is an emergency right now, you might call it the slowest building emergency ever. This was not the result of earthquakes or natural disasters - people saw this coming ten miles away.
From late December, a story in Indian Country Today. The article itself is about the impending energy crisis in Rural Alaska and the people who have spoken out about it, including Begich, Comeau, Murkowski and... oh yeah - the entire Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) convention! The reporter notes that:
The Rural Subcabinet formed by Governor Sarah Palin in response to what many consider a crisis in rural Alaska has reportedly met, but specific information about their activities has been difficult to find.
AND
By late October, the AFN and the mayor’s office had already voiced strong disappointment at the governor’s response to their concerns about the need for culturally vibrant and healthy rural communities. The mayor and AFN both felt that a subcabinet was a less than adequate response to the immediate
crisis.
The mayor's office they are referring to here is (now) Sen. Begich, not the current, acting mayor.
The Anchorage Daily News on AFN wanting a Rural energy emergency declared back in October, as well as an article from last summer, in which Native leaders are urging the state to action on the (already present) energy problems. The solutions offered by the leadership in the summer article were, quite obviously, ignored. I can only hope they don't continue to be. Sen. Murkowski held a hearing in Bethel to discuss the outmigration because of the Rural energy crisis back in August:
"This has reached a critical point to where we will now have decide if we are going to feed our young or keep them warm," said Ron Hoffman president and CEO of the Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority.
The Bristol Bay Times reported on these "rural residents" calling for help - they wanted the state to declare an energy emergency back in May:
The state needs to declare an energy disaster in rural Alaska, he wrote.
“Our disaster has been ongoing for at least five years and will continue without drastic intervention from our state.”
The "energy solution" they mention Palin announing in the article was the $1200 Palin pushed for Alaskans - already being called too little, too late for Rural residents when it was first introduced. Of course, we now know how true the detractors were now.
Even USA Today got in on the news, reporting on the oncoming fuel shortage, as barges weren't making it in:
Alaskans in rural areas will spend 40% of their annual income on energy this winter compared with 4% for the average Alaska household, according to a University of Alaska Anchorage study published in May.
I think the disparity in "where the money goes" could sink in for the people talking about how Rural folk wasted all the money. Mudflats had an excellent post on a Rural shopping trip, in the same light.
I think this is the third or fourth time I've put this out there, but the Alaska Natives Commission Report, published back in the '90s, reports on conditions of Alaska Native people, from economy to social and cultural implications, results of the loss of self-reliance and subsistence... and on, and on. It is a HUGE report, but fairly comprehensive, and, most importantly, it presents a multitude of solutions. One little bit from it, talking about Rural economy:
Beyond the limitations of little (or no) infrastructure, high costs, restricted transportation access, and the many other factors that constitute barriers to economic development (as discussed in the introductory section of this Report), if fuel were not readily available, practically any sort of market economy would be prohibited.
The report includes a quote from Leo Tolstoy I find interesting:
What the federal and state governments can do is offer mutual respect and assistance. They must be willing to give control of local issues back to Alaska Natives. They must step aside in many areas so that Alaska Natives can attempt to reconstruct honorable and dignified lives for themselves.
This will not be an easy task. People who have become accustomed to living without power tend to avoid the obligations that accompany it. Likewise, the external forces that take power — even with the best intentions — generally resist giving it back. In that regard, the following words from the works of Leo Tolstoy are appropriate to consider:
"I sit on a man’s back choking him and making him carry me.Yet, I assure myself and others that I am sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all possible means — except by getting off his back."
Many people - and administrations - have dropped the ball on this. The immediate solutions mean people need aid, but the long-term solutions have more to do with letting people live and build an infrastructure for themselves. Though the problems are many, so are the solutions.
But in light of this past year, in light of the urgent voices in the news, in the villages, in conferences speaking out about the impending crisis, the absolute certainty that fuel shortages, economic crisis and EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING was going to happen, I just want to know one thing:
Why is our governor just finding out about this?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Spotlight on Emmonak
It struck me, listening to the KTUU coverage of Emmonak (video provided by Dennis Zaki, whom YOU helped send to Emmonak!) how showing Nick Tucker's words were:
This, to me, goes to the core of how I think most Native communities deal with it - internalize, be quiet about it, don't bring more shame on yourself than you already have.
It is the shame that has quickly risen to the top of this situation.
Most directly, it was mentioned in a Tundra Drums article about the food donations. Elders criticizing asking for help, and receiving donations. I wondered how long that would take. I have no doubt many in the community feel that shame sharply - it is as embedded in culture and life now as the roots of a tree.
I can only envision things will not go all that peachy for Nick Tucker in the days, and years, to come. Not in his community, I think. What he did in asking was a great leap of bravery. Not only will he be called a "scammer" and "beggar" by the most judgemental on the outside, he will almost certainly face strong criticism from many in his own community. You jut don't ask for help like he did. That's bravery.
Yet, would you like to see what is more disturbing (and, at the same time, hopeful)?
The Tundra Drums posted these letters:
Crisis in Kongiganak.
Crisis in Marshall.
Yeah. That would be MORE villages in Alaska writing letters about similiar plights in their own communities.
The Kongiganak letter talks about the job situation,
The Marshall one is both a letter of empathy and encouragement:
What is most disturbing of all is that this is not a surprise to anyone! Not anyone in Alaska, anyways. We've been hearing about just how bad it was going to get since last year. Truth be told, we've been hearing about it for a lot longer than that, but it was only on the "It WILL happen this year" level since last year. It was a gaurantee.
Many, many more villages are living in silence. Some are better off, some are worse, but I can only hope that the actions of right now will have far-reaching effects to the many other communities facing such hardships.
I feel a bit of the "hurry up and wait" for Emmonak, and other villages. I have donated, and I will be gathering some food this weekend (though I will also be looking into which of the organzations will be addressing some of the other villages, too) but, for the most part, the ball is a bit in the other court for the moment. Who will act? What will the state do? What will other citizens do? Much of the "next step" depends upon the leadership we will receive, and I am talking about from the state level, Native corporations, village leaders.
A few other bits about Emmonak:
The Tundra Drums did an excellent article on Emmonak, and had a bit more than other media outlets on the impact Alaska bloggers had on the situation. It was Alaska Newspapers (who own Tundra Drums) that first reported Nick Tucker's letter, and Alaska Newspapers that began Village Aid - a food drive. Not to mention they've been covering "what is going to happen" to Rural Alaska since forever. I give them a whole lot of credit for being on top of this from day one.
Celtic Diva informed us that the man on the radio from Emmonak calling it a "scam" was a Palin board appointee. WTF?!?
Progressive Alaska cross-posted a firedoglake diary he did.
Immoral Minority has a fairly disturbing post about just how long it could take to get help to Emmonak.
"It was hidden. Each single household thought they were the only one, so they were ashamed to ask for help publicly."
This, to me, goes to the core of how I think most Native communities deal with it - internalize, be quiet about it, don't bring more shame on yourself than you already have.
It is the shame that has quickly risen to the top of this situation.
Most directly, it was mentioned in a Tundra Drums article about the food donations. Elders criticizing asking for help, and receiving donations. I wondered how long that would take. I have no doubt many in the community feel that shame sharply - it is as embedded in culture and life now as the roots of a tree.
I can only envision things will not go all that peachy for Nick Tucker in the days, and years, to come. Not in his community, I think. What he did in asking was a great leap of bravery. Not only will he be called a "scammer" and "beggar" by the most judgemental on the outside, he will almost certainly face strong criticism from many in his own community. You jut don't ask for help like he did. That's bravery.
Yet, would you like to see what is more disturbing (and, at the same time, hopeful)?
The Tundra Drums posted these letters:
Crisis in Kongiganak.
Crisis in Marshall.
Yeah. That would be MORE villages in Alaska writing letters about similiar plights in their own communities.
The Kongiganak letter talks about the job situation,
I've seen families in our village suffer with food and fuel, similar to what the people of Emmonak are facing. I'm trying to seek help for these people with jobs that are available here but only a handful will get a job.
The Marshall one is both a letter of empathy and encouragement:
Marshall people too have remained silent and endured the hardships and it is certain many other area villages are hurting as you mentioned but have yet to seek help.
Already critics are attacking and dubbing us as beggars, however, many just don't understand life in small rural villages and are quick to judge and condemn.
What is most disturbing of all is that this is not a surprise to anyone! Not anyone in Alaska, anyways. We've been hearing about just how bad it was going to get since last year. Truth be told, we've been hearing about it for a lot longer than that, but it was only on the "It WILL happen this year" level since last year. It was a gaurantee.
Many, many more villages are living in silence. Some are better off, some are worse, but I can only hope that the actions of right now will have far-reaching effects to the many other communities facing such hardships.
I feel a bit of the "hurry up and wait" for Emmonak, and other villages. I have donated, and I will be gathering some food this weekend (though I will also be looking into which of the organzations will be addressing some of the other villages, too) but, for the most part, the ball is a bit in the other court for the moment. Who will act? What will the state do? What will other citizens do? Much of the "next step" depends upon the leadership we will receive, and I am talking about from the state level, Native corporations, village leaders.
A few other bits about Emmonak:
The Tundra Drums did an excellent article on Emmonak, and had a bit more than other media outlets on the impact Alaska bloggers had on the situation. It was Alaska Newspapers (who own Tundra Drums) that first reported Nick Tucker's letter, and Alaska Newspapers that began Village Aid - a food drive. Not to mention they've been covering "what is going to happen" to Rural Alaska since forever. I give them a whole lot of credit for being on top of this from day one.
Celtic Diva informed us that the man on the radio from Emmonak calling it a "scam" was a Palin board appointee. WTF?!?
Progressive Alaska cross-posted a firedoglake diary he did.
Immoral Minority has a fairly disturbing post about just how long it could take to get help to Emmonak.
Monday, November 3, 2008
If there is a last straw with Palin, this is it
Let us put the "Palin's not using her husband's heritage to her advantage" arguments to rest.
In case you missed that, when asked what Palin is going to do to encourage more minority involvement...
"We've got to be all about the equality. Our constitution preaches...Todd is Alaskan Native and if you go up to Alaska, we have a problem with him being a minority up there. We live it."
We're going to ignore the fact that she didn't even come close to answering the question - or understanding it - and move right on to You've Got to Be Freakin' Kidding Me?!
So Sarah "lives" it? Please, please, please enlighten me. No minority person can look at this video and take her seriously. Those of us who live in Alaska, and have actually faced some hardships due to race can take her less seriously still. It is absolutely unimaginable to me that this woman can look a man straight in the face and claim to be part of a vast injured party - a party she has done nothing for, and has unrolled too many initiatives against.
I have posted these before, but just a few of Palin's highlight - apparently the result of "living it."
Sarah Palin's Record on Alaska Native and Tribal Issues
Palin and Sexual Abuse Poilicies
An Alaska Native man about his governor
But what could Palin have done about it?
There are plenty more, but really, Palin is no friend to the Native people of Alaska. Many have spoken out, and many more would like to speak out but cannot out of fear of retribution (and in all honesty, I can't blame them.)
The "experience" of being a minority is not a singular experience. I have had my own experiences, my own upbringings, have known the joy and pride, the pain and frustration of being an Alaska Native woman in Alaska.
Sarah Palin does not know what this is like. She has not, for one second of her life, "lived it." I cannot tell you just how much this belittles what it is to be Native in Alaska.
You do not get a buy in from your associations, no matter how many times she has tried to use it - or deny it - in the past. With this line of thinking, she is also a card-carrying member of the Alaskan Independance Party. But it didn't work when she tried to be a union member by association, and it won't work now.
I think what has been most frustrating is how many times I've been told by Palin fans that she's not using Todd's heritage to her advantage - that's just the McCain campaign, and she can't do anything about that. Besides the fact that she absolutely can do something about it, can we at last put to rest the argument? I haven't seen anything yet that Sarah won't grab onto to further her ambitions, and her husband and children's heritage is no exception.
I have yet to crack the Sarah gibberish code to know even remotely what she means by "..we have a problem with him being a minority up there" either, but it doesn't bode well for future Native policies in this state.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being Native was in Alaska, she would be fighting for better sexual assault policies, not charging women for rape kits.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being Native was in Alaska, she would be paying attention to the mass exodus from the villages because they can't pay their $2,000/month energy bills, instead of paying off the citizens with an ineffective bribe.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being a Native in Alaska was, she would be fighting for a public safety division that would get the backup and funding it needed, instead of cutting millions from it and firing commissioners over personal issues.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being a Native in Alaska was, she would be meeting with Native leaders, instead of repeatedly blowing them off and ignoring the issues.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being a minority in Alaska was, she woud be addressing the issues, being a leader on the problems, instead of not being present at all.
To pull a line from her now infamous acceptance speech, "Being a minority is kinda like being married to a guy with Yup'ik bloodlines, only you have actual experience."
In case you missed that, when asked what Palin is going to do to encourage more minority involvement...
"We've got to be all about the equality. Our constitution preaches...Todd is Alaskan Native and if you go up to Alaska, we have a problem with him being a minority up there. We live it."
We're going to ignore the fact that she didn't even come close to answering the question - or understanding it - and move right on to You've Got to Be Freakin' Kidding Me?!
So Sarah "lives" it? Please, please, please enlighten me. No minority person can look at this video and take her seriously. Those of us who live in Alaska, and have actually faced some hardships due to race can take her less seriously still. It is absolutely unimaginable to me that this woman can look a man straight in the face and claim to be part of a vast injured party - a party she has done nothing for, and has unrolled too many initiatives against.
I have posted these before, but just a few of Palin's highlight - apparently the result of "living it."
Sarah Palin's Record on Alaska Native and Tribal Issues
Palin and Sexual Abuse Poilicies
An Alaska Native man about his governor
But what could Palin have done about it?
There are plenty more, but really, Palin is no friend to the Native people of Alaska. Many have spoken out, and many more would like to speak out but cannot out of fear of retribution (and in all honesty, I can't blame them.)
The "experience" of being a minority is not a singular experience. I have had my own experiences, my own upbringings, have known the joy and pride, the pain and frustration of being an Alaska Native woman in Alaska.
Sarah Palin does not know what this is like. She has not, for one second of her life, "lived it." I cannot tell you just how much this belittles what it is to be Native in Alaska.
You do not get a buy in from your associations, no matter how many times she has tried to use it - or deny it - in the past. With this line of thinking, she is also a card-carrying member of the Alaskan Independance Party. But it didn't work when she tried to be a union member by association, and it won't work now.
I think what has been most frustrating is how many times I've been told by Palin fans that she's not using Todd's heritage to her advantage - that's just the McCain campaign, and she can't do anything about that. Besides the fact that she absolutely can do something about it, can we at last put to rest the argument? I haven't seen anything yet that Sarah won't grab onto to further her ambitions, and her husband and children's heritage is no exception.
I have yet to crack the Sarah gibberish code to know even remotely what she means by "..we have a problem with him being a minority up there" either, but it doesn't bode well for future Native policies in this state.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being Native was in Alaska, she would be fighting for better sexual assault policies, not charging women for rape kits.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being Native was in Alaska, she would be paying attention to the mass exodus from the villages because they can't pay their $2,000/month energy bills, instead of paying off the citizens with an ineffective bribe.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being a Native in Alaska was, she would be fighting for a public safety division that would get the backup and funding it needed, instead of cutting millions from it and firing commissioners over personal issues.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being a Native in Alaska was, she would be meeting with Native leaders, instead of repeatedly blowing them off and ignoring the issues.
If Sarah really knew what a "problem" being a minority in Alaska was, she woud be addressing the issues, being a leader on the problems, instead of not being present at all.
To pull a line from her now infamous acceptance speech, "Being a minority is kinda like being married to a guy with Yup'ik bloodlines, only you have actual experience."
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Real Native Myths and Legends #4 - Indians and Eskimos
Indian. Eskimo. Native American. Tribe. Clan. People group. First
Nations. First Peoples. American Indian. Indigenous.
Nations. First Peoples. American Indian. Indigenous.
It's dang confusing sometimes, I know, and I've grown up with all
these terms. I have some sympathy for every (non-Native) friend I've
ever had who has worked up to (usually unsure of how to approach it)
asking me, "So… what do you call yourself?"
There are actually many different forms of this question, but it boils
down to, "How on earth do I say what you are?" I know there are those
who will argue we should be "color-blind" and not look at a person's
culture. I disagree. I think we should honor and celebrate a person's
culture, we would be robbing them of a huge part of who they are not
to – we just don't have to judge a person by their culture. It's also
just a reality – having to define someone's background is not going
anywhere.
Kind of reminds me of a discussion I had about this topic in high
school, and my "African-American" friend was asked how to address his
race. He said, "We're 'Black' now. But I'll let you know if it
changes."
If you ask the government, they would consider me from the "Indian"
people group (as opposed to "Eskimo" or "Aleut". On a federal document
I am "American Indian or Alaska Native." On my Certificate of Indian
Blood, I am from the Tlingit "tribe."
If you ask me, I will tell you I am Tlingit or Alaska Native,
depending on where I am and who you are. I will not say the Tlingit
tribe – no such thing. There's also no "Tlingit Nation". I won't tell
you I am Indian – as far as I'm concerned, Indians are from India. I
won't tell you I'm Native American, and I won't tell you what tribe
I'm from – as far as I know, I have no tribe.
Much of the problem stems from trying to group an entire continent's
worth of culture into one identifiable group. Even here in Alaska, the
cultures are incredibly diverse. I have a Yup'ik friend that I share
values and experiences with as an Alaska Native woman, but when it
comes to so many other cultural values, she seems to be speaking
another language (though, often times, she quite literally IS speaking
another language.)
There is also the problem of Native people only just being able to
define how they were called by the general public in the last
generation or two, and so it seems quite changeable, and no two people
agree on the perfect way yet.
Last year at the World Eskimo Indian Olympics (WEIO,) one of the
assistants came to get our dance group, "We need the Indian groups!" A
dozen sets of furrowed brows and he quickly answered, "Hey, if I have
to be Eskimo, you have to be Indian!" Fair enough. Point is, even our
own institutions are outdated in the terms we use.
But all the background and why and how aside, there still remains the
issue of, "What do I call you?"
The simplest answer I can say is, "Just ask."
I have often wondered if this is not a very "polite" thing to do
outside of Alaska Native cultures. Maybe the sensitivities of being PC
or a Western etiquette – but generally when I am asked it is with an
embarrassed tone, usually an apology. A "I'm sorry if this is rude,
but…" Recently, a friend of mine described a non-Native woman who was
offended when a Native woman asked her race.
Although I am generally loathe to group such diverse cultures into one
"group think," my own experiences in my culture and other Native
cultures in the state is that the first thing you want to do is get to
know someone's background. As an example, a dialogue of me meeting
another Native person:
"Nice to meet you – so where are you from?"
"Akiachak."
"That by Fairbanks?"
"Bethel area."
"Cool – you know John James?"
"Yeah, he's my cousin."
"Sweet."
And we switch. I threw in my own lack of geographical awareness in
there for realism. But basically, I now know where he's from (and can
deduce his 'people group' from that,) and who his general family is.
Actually, if it were really real, we would find out all the different
people we know and/or are related to in common. Many times we will ask
and talk directly about what racial background we are from.
In short, the "polite" or friendly thing to do in the culture I know
is to introduce and let your own background be known. Many Native
people who are born in urban areas will identify themselves as being
"from" whatever village or rural area their family is from. I was
delighted to meet a man "from Klawock" last Summer, very near where I
was born, but then he said, "Oh – but I've never been there." I have a
feeling as more and more Native people are born in Anchorage, this
will become even more common.
I believe the Tlingit people have elevated introductions to an art. My
Yup'ik friend is fond of telling me that "Tlingits complicate
everything!" Maybe true, but there are some pretty solid reasons
behind it.
Do you know that scene in "Lord of the Rings," where the trees are
talking amongst themselves all day, and when they finally talk to the
Hobbits, you find they've only just introduced themselves? I believe
that this must have been based off of a traditional Tlingit
celebration. You introduce pretty much your whole background and
genealogy. Basically, when I begin my speech, you should know my name
(or names,) my parents, my teachers, my grandparents and
great-grandparents, my moiety, clan and sub-clans, where I am from –
or my family is from, and where I live now. And that's the short
version.
Although I cannot tell you what all Native people would like to be
referred to as – even between my siblings and I this would vary – I
can tell you it doesn't hurt to ask. Of course, basic politeness
applies here too. I don't suggest a "So what's your racial make-up?"
or questions at times that would be ethically inappropriate - job
interview anyone?
A few tips:
-Start with asking where they are from. It wouldn't hurt if you knew
(in general) where people groups were from.
- Don't ask anyone if they are "Eskimo." Really. I mean it. The few
people who are okay with being identified by others as such will let
you know in good time, but this will lose you more respect than it
will gain. And don't assume because one person of that background
prefers to be called "Eskimo" the next is. A friend and I will joke
around, calling each other "Eskimo" and "Indian," but I made a mistake
thinking I could joke like that with another coworker - she did NOT
appreciate being called Eskimo, although from the same background as
my friend.
- As an Alaska Native person, the above also applies to the word
"Indian." From what I understand, in the Lower 48 this can be a pretty
common identifier, but not so popular up here.
- Don't attach a "tribe," "clan," "nation" or other grouping word when
asking. I get asked a lot if I am from the Tlingit tribe, or what
tribe I am from. Federally, this is correct. There are people groups
in the U.S. which embrace the word. But no Tlingit person I know
identifies themselves this way. Likewise, there is no Tlingit clan. I
DO belong to a clan, as well as a house and a moiety, but the same
will not be true of every Alaska Native culture.
Basically, just see how the person identifies themselves, and treat
them with respect. You do not have to do things "traditionally" - most
Native people do not address or introduce traditionally, unless in a
formal setting, and do not expect that of you. But to "gain friends
and influence Native people," showing a respect for their
individuality as a person, and within a culture, will go far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)