Does keeping Native languages alive even matter? Part 3

I've loved seeing the great comments left by my previous two posts on the question of language revitilzation and extinction. Here's the third installment in this subject I could go on and on (and seemingly have) about, and discussion of the many arguments I've heard against keeping Native languages alive:

"We're all Americans now!" - or "Why do we have to dwell on the past?"

This is possibly one of the more frustrating arguments for me, personally, mostly because it's not an argument with anything except an attitude of "This is how I want it to be" behind it, and not trying to understand what's actually going on.

While the oft-cited "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" comes to mind, it is a woman who was in the same school my grandmother was that I think of when this is the argument.

You see, I was pretty hard-headed myself about language, only in a different way. I did not think much of my grandparents "giving up" their language. I mean, in exactly one generation, they'd "decided" to give it up. They chose to not pass it on to their children, who in turn could NOT pass it on to me!

But then I heard this woman tell her story, the story of what happened when she went to school. She said what I'd heard before, but I'd never heard it from someone who experienced it, much less someone who experienced it in the same school, at the same time as my grandma. These children, five and six years old, were beaten for speaking Tlingit. They were whipped if they uttered it. Try to imagine yourself at five years old, speaking how you speak at home, and getting hit.

But then she said, "The smart ones got hit the most." And they learned to undo it the fastest.

The "smart ones" - the natural leaders, the ones not afraid to speak out... at least at first. These are the ones most cruelly treated, and the ones who were most dead-set on not passing on that kind of cruelty to their children.

Could you, having gone through this experience, have sent your five year old to kindergarten knowing how to speak the language you were beaten for speaking? I don't know that I would.

It is in this light I remember that the past is not irrelevant. And forgive me if it also brings to mind a certain animated movie in which there may or may not have been big musical numbers with warthogs and hyenas. Remember in the "Lion King" when Simba tells the monkey it's in the past, and the monkey whacks him on the head? Yeah, the past still hurts.

Okay, searing political insight it may not be, but I would hope the next person who talks about forgetting the past or "just being American" keeps in mind how hurtful those comments can be. I'm proud to be American, and I think speaking the tongue that was spoken here for millenia is an incredibly patriotic thing to do. I wish I knew more, I wish I was committed enough to be bilingual, and I don't see how my nation could be anything but benefitted by me and my children and my children's children being the same.

And how can I forget the past that brought me to where I am today? Why would I want to? What's more, why would we, as a nation want to forget that? If it makes you uncomfortable, if it makes you sad, or feel ashamed - fine. It makes me feel those things too. But if we forget the things that make us uncomfortable, we must also forget that which makes us proud, and comforted, and passionate. The brief discomfort I may feel by remembering all the true history of our not-so-distant past is a small price to pay for that.

Does keeping Native languages alive even matter? Part 2

I posted the other day about Native languages and the ongoing conversation I hear about whether it is even of any value to do so. With as many "reasons" as others come up with on how it is not any value, I've split up my own discussion into several parts:

"We're all going to one language anyways"

Whether that is true or not (and it's certainly not happening in anyone's lifetime alive now,) the value of having these languages not only not go extinct, but thrive, is sadly losing potency as the years wear on. This is, quite simply, because each year we're losing more and more people who know what is behind the language.

There are many, many words and phrases in any language that are not simply a way to say the same thing in any language. There are ideas, thoughts, values, philosophies - whole religions - that you can only talk about comprehensively in a certain language. My mom talks about my grandpa (whose first language was English, I might add) who would struggle to impart a Tlingit philosophy or value he learned growing up, but would throw up his hands with a, "There's no way to say that in English!"

A Tlingit teacher I had talked about one word - just ONE word - in Tlingit, "Eetoowoo" (and yikes, I think I just hacked up that spelling!) It is translated in English as "sorrow." But I can still hear her voice as she tried to explain what it really meant - it was more than sorrow. It was a deep, deep sadness that the whole body, the whole being, was involved in. Not a word, or even meaning, we have in the English language. I still don't know what she meant.

I've heard people say they can experience a culture by visiting it, by attending a dance, by reading about it - therefore why not just all speak the same language as the language isn't a part of it?

But culture isn't about attending a play or viewing a piece of art. It literally makes up who a person is.

If you think language isn't important to a culture, I challenge you to learn another language fluently. Use this language, and only this language, to your children, and forbid them to speak English. Then tell me the stories your father told have the same weight. Tell me the songs your mother sang to you can be passed on. Tell me the jokes you've giggled at since you were in high school translate to this language, and your favorite books make as much sense. I gaurantee you MUCH will be lost. Even if you're able to capture big chunks of it, there's no way to translate a whole culture into a different language in one generation.

Now try and think of this as a large group of people trying to do the same thing. Values, stories, philosophies, songs - we've already lost so much. But if we can literally speak the same language as those who can still teach it before it's too late, it won't all be gone.

Does keeping Native languages alive even matter?

The threat of extinction for many (nearly all) Alaska Native languages has received some attention lately, much do to the release of an updates Alaska Native languages map.

I'll leave some others (here, Talking Alaska) to talk about the why and what is going on.

What I get concerned with, whenever this topic comes up and the inevitable backlash of negative commentary, is the idea that the languages should be kept alive at all. Honestly, the idea that it was acceptable, or even preferred, that these languages go extinct was foreign to me until about the age of 15. That was the first time I heard a rant from a peer on "preserving" English as the only American language. Despite the fact that ironies abound when talking about "preserving" the native language of the land (English? Really?) - it is an all-too-common sentiment I've heard expressed.

Other reasons I've heard for letting it go - it's natural selection for it to go extinct, children who learn another language other than English first struggle with learning at a pace with others, there's no value to having different languages, we're spending too much on trying to save languages... though all too frequently the argument just boils down to "we're all American now! Why do we have to dwell on the past?"

I want to address each of these reasons, so I'm going to address a different one each day.

Natural Selection - or "All cultures/languages change"

The above statement is true. Languages and cultures change, and a sign of a dying culture is one trying not to change at all.

But an organic evolution is quite different than a forced extinction. Ask some dinosaurs if they would prefer to evolve into some birds over a few thousand millenia, or if they would like a meteor dropped on their heads. To put it in more human terms, would you prefer to grow out of your job and get promoted, or would you prefer to be fired?

For the most part, what happened to the Native languages of the Americas wasn't a natural evolution. What happened was traumatic, invasive and left no room for real adaptation. In both cases above, true evolution happens over a longer period of time and there is a chosen adjustment to changing environments - choosing what is deemed "better". And in both cases, asteroid or firing, a forced change is fairly terrible to experience and "only the strong survive" doesn't neccessarily apply. Too much of that depends on chance and what the invasive element chooses.

I had a great Tlingit teacher who talked to us about a common Tlingit expression I heard growing up. When someone says "Gunalcheesh" (thank you) - the response is often "Ho ho!" (you're welcome.) I really did hear this often.

What a surprise to learn it didn't mean what I think it meant over 20 years later! "Gunalcheesh ho ho" actually is one phrase, and is used to emphasize the thank you - like "Thank you VERY much." There is no phrase commonly said, traditionally, to respond to thank you, as there is in English. But the "young kids" as she said (she meant my parents generation!) were changing this, and this new kind of word was emerging.

To a language, she said, this is a great thing. It shows the language is alive, and adapting. The "young kids" were choosing to change this on their own, because it suited the younger culture more, and it brought two languages together.

THAT is "natural selection."

What happened here was trauma. It was forced change. It was not an evolution, but something ripped out by the roots. This isn't an effort to place blame, but to emphasize that there is nothing "natural" about being beaten for speaking a language, or being told to speak a foreign language in your own home. It also isn't totally extinct yet for all the languages. And until it is, why would we ever prevent those from fighting that fight?

Next: Is there any real value to knowing these languages?

Native issues in perspective

A little collection of opinion on Native subjects, and Native opinions on "everybody" subjects.




So, the first one isn't new, but I just found it, so it's new to me! I've seen different versions of this "Native American and immigration" joke, but it pretty much sums up how I feel about immigration today - and why I don't think many Native people (at least not up here) feel very strongly against "modern-day" immigration. Kinda too late now!


Are we a nation doomed to be violent?
An excellent piece in Indian Country Today by Mark Trahant, regarding the Arizona shooting:
"Let’s use this tragedy as the call to civility. When political rhetoric goes too far, say so. Seek out those disagree and praise them for their ideas, then politely dissent. We must praise those who agree to disagree. We need to make the politics of hate absolutely unacceptable."

Sanitizing Mark Twain classics
I've seen this in the news for a while now, and have tried not to roll my eyes every time. For those that haven't seen it, there's a new edition of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer that eliminate the usage of words like "injn" and the big N. A bias, maybe - big Twain fan - but I came across this (long!) American Indian analysis focused more on taking out the "injun" references, and got pretty engrossed. While the huge post is great as a critical review and summary of the passages that include the word, I thought the comments below it were very well thought out as well. A few excerpts:

"Taking out the stinging words, sugar-coats and white-washes some of the nasty bits of American history. It pretends those words were not used and some ancestors were better human beings than they really were.

Who exactly is the sanitized edition for? Obviously, not for American Indians and African-Americans."

"Just as my dad was a product of his times, that's the way I think we should read Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn--as products of their time, with language of the time."

Sanitizing the MLK message
This is from an interesting blog I follow, Newspaper Rock ("Where Native America meets pop culture"). Although I don't fully agree with this opinion (that might be a reprint itself?) that we (and specifically Michelle Obama) shouldn't be so "service oriented" on this day, it made me think pretty differently about it. Worth a read!

Alaska Native news roundup

A few topics/stories I've seen making the online rounds:

A Yup'ik Swan Lake
Too cool! The Alaska Dance Theatre, Alaska Dance Theatre School, Alaska Native Heritage Center and Eugene Ballet Company are collaborating on a revision of the classic Swan Lake ballet with Yup'ik storytelling and dance. I used to be skeptical of these kind of attempts, but several years ago I went to the Anchorage Symphony's collaboration with Native hoop dancing and flute music - AWESOME PERFORMANCE. I'm ready to see more mixin'! I hope it runs longer than this week!

Native corporations sue over polar bear decisions
This is being reported many places, and I'd love to see some polling of the region. For Pebble Mine, for instance, BIG difference between whether the people of the region support it, and the corporations of the region support it. I don't have a very informed opinion of this, outside of the documentaries and talking heads, but I certainly lean toward long-term wildlife preservation over immediate wants of commerce.

Lots of talk about Alaska Native suicide numbers
So, it seems like nothing new - the Alaska Native suicide rates are still horrible. I've even heard people talk about not bothering putting any more resources into stopping suicide if it doesn't seem to change the numbers. ADN has reported on it in multiple ways, the most recent a little revisit of their "People in Peril" series from 20 years ago. KTUU has done a few segments in just a few days, Alaska Newspapers, and many, many more, mostly due to the state's annual report that recently came out.

But let's not stop trying. IIt may seem like "the same thing over and over again" over the past 20 years." But over the past few years, I've been looking at research and case studies in suicide, especially suicide in indgenous populations. Here's the news I hope people also pay attention to:

1) The "science" of trying prevent suicide at a mass level is very, very new. Or rather, the only way it was done before not very long ago was through religious belief (suicide as a sin, etc.) The "answer" was never going to be simple, quick, or gauranteed the first, second, or hundredth round out. Twenty years may seem like a long time to be trying, but in the life of a disease, is but half a moment.

2) Is there a cure for cancer yet? I don't see anyone saying, after all this time, and all this money spent without a cure, MUCH longer, and many more billions spent than suicide prevention, that we should give up on our attempts at preventing cancer.

3) Suicide is not as simple as people would like to think. It is hugely misunderstood, and it is truly a disease, as are the many underlying factors leading up to it.

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:

"...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.

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 - 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 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.

Nick Tucker on Palin

Saw this in the Cordova Times:

Nick Tucker angered by governor's "disrespect"

Nick Tucker is the man who wrote the original letter about Emmonak, sparking all the attention of the last few months.

From the letter:

I felt like Governor Palin treated Emmonak with most disregard and disrespect by not coming here where it all started. Instead, we had to go up to Russian Mission to meet her and followed her to Marshall.

I was there. About whom and to whom was she referring that top leadership in what village(s) should be changed? This is a blow to all rural villages telling each one of us that our past and current leadership isn't worth being there!

Why and on what basis? This message is dismal, not of hope. How do I take things? Here, I had a person whom I voted for and who turns around and stabs us? I tell you, I want things done for Emmonak. And now, for all rural villages. We deserve better than that — respect.

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."

"Todd Palin No Posterboy" - a wake-up call from a short article

This article is rough - "Todd Palin No Poster Boy for Yup'ik Eskimos or Other Native Alaskans." It's from "New America Media" - an ethnic media site.

It actually reminded me of something I haven't been talking about when I say that Palin hasn't done anything for Alaska Native people - what it is she could have been doing. As an Alaskan Native, it is obvious to me - but then I live it, and see it every day.

I am generally loathe to just report bad news, bad news, and more bad news, and some bad statistics thrown in. Especially since I don't believe the Alaska Native people need to hear again and again what we get slammed in the face with at every turn - not to mention we just live it. I have heard the stats for a lifetime now - one in five below the poverty line, infant mortality is double that of white Americans, turburculosis is twenty times over, twelve percent of the public school population, but a quarter of the drop out rate, and on and on and on.

There's a lot of that in the article, and more, and it does paint a pretty rough picture of Alaska Native people. I won't deny, we are in serious trouble, and have serious social and health issues that require an unbelievable amount of change. Some things have gotten better, some are worse, some stay most unfortunately the same.

I love my people, and though I am not as familiar with the other Native cultures as my own, I love learning more about them every day. I am proud to be from a group that has given so much to the world, and am proud of the way we are already addressing these issues. There is so much about the people and cultures that you don't see reported, wonderful, good things. I am proud to be here in a state with such beautiful and intelligent people.

I will be prouder still when we really see a movement of change, a fire lit beneath us to "be the change you want to see in the world." I know this time is coming, and many of us can sense the match getting struck already.

From the article:

In a report on the plight of Native Alaskans, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission called for massive increases in spending on job and skills training and programs to boost employment, improve education and public services. The commission called for sweeping reforms in the criminal justice and health care systems. The recommendations were made four years before Palin took office. Other than a brief mention of diversity in her gubernatorial campaign speech in 2006, there is no evidence that Palin has said or done anything about the commission’s recommendations. If she had it would have put a beam on the faces of thousands of Yup’ik Eskimos who aren’t named Todd Palin.

The point of the article is not saying that all these issues, this is all Sarah or Todd Palin's fault. The point of the article is to show what I have said in about 20 different ways - Despite being the governor of this state, with nearly 20% of the population being Native, Sarah Palin has done absolutely nothing to address any of these issues. There are plenty to choose from.

Record cancer rates. Record suicide rates. Record abuse rates. Record child mortality rates. Record victims of hate crime. Record imprisonment, with an extremely disproportionate representation of Native men.

These are the statistics I hate, the statistics I hear over and over, and know to be true, but also know there is a bigger truth than just a bunch of statistics. These are the kind of statistics that make me get up in the morning and do whatever I can for the people behind the numbers.

I wish my governor felt the same way.

-

Cucuklillruunga!

With all this attention on the national politics, there's still big news coming in the local (state) politics! I'm not hearing the greatest news coming from the primaries in Alaska, but that's just the earliest looks.

Grassroots Science posted this - she got a Yup'ik "I voted!" sticker! The decision about Yup'ik language help with voting was so recent - how great is this!

Update on Yup'ik voting

Some of the news about the Yup'ik langauge ballots, an update from an earlier post I did:

Indian Country Today declared a "Victory for Yup'ik speakers"

From the Bristol Bay Times, "...voting help on the way"

Anchorage Daily News says "Bethel's Yup'ik voters to get more assistance"

The headlines kind of speak for themselves. All in time for the vote next week!