It is with great pleasure that I post this article by Wambdi A. WasteWin (Angelique EagleWoman.) I hope that her monthy contributions to this site will give us something to think about.Surrounded by Capitalism
One of the greatest challenges currently facing Tribal Nations and indigenous peoples in North America and South America is the ability to sustain economies while surrounded by capitalism. Traditional tribal values are often at odds with the economic philosophy that Tribal Nations are now surrounded by with the formation of the European-descendant countries (e.g. Canada, the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, etc.). Tribal Nations now find themselves in the midst of capitalist market economies that are navigated successfully by those motivated by self-interest and greed.
These types of economies have made it possible for sharp dealings, outright theft, false promises, and governmental/legal sanctioning of the dispossession of tribal peoples from their resources, lands, and any other item found to have value on the capitalist market -- including cultural and spiritual items and ideas. The blatant stealing of Native cultural and intellectual property is prevalent from public school mascots to name brand clothing, automobiles, government symbols, marketing campaigns, and military equipment. Capitalist market economies are based upon the fast buck and catchy advertisement with no regard for the distortion created or the lives impacted when important and sacred Native imagery is transformed into slogans and disconnected from Native culture.
Through the lens of a capitalist market economy, the tribal values are viewed and relegated to “primitive,” “socialistic,” and “wasteful” where every idea and product is not directed to purchase on the market. In turn through the lens of tribal values, the capitalist values are viewed as actively encouraging greed, treachery, lies, and fraudulent behavior.
Tribes historically have entered into commerce with other Tribal Nations, individual traders, and representatives from other countries. The long history of deceit and manipulation in interactions between the Tribal Nations and the European-descendant countries in North and South America can be traced back to the value conflicts between the two systems of commerce. Indigenous peoples never envisioned the world and the components of the world as commodities for exchange. The rules of trade and exchange for tribal peoples have been governed by kinship and ethical rules that were not adhered to by the Europeans and Euro-Americans that the tribal peoples were forced into contact with. The foundation of economic prosperity for Tribal Nations and indigenous peoples in the Americas has been severely undermined by the colonial mentality of parasitic draining of the indigenous host. By recognizing the challenges facing indigenous peoples, economic development strategies must address head-on the reality that the European-descendant countries intend to consign tribal peoples to the discards of the colonial depletion of these resource rich lands forming the continents of North and South America.
Angelique EagleWoman
___________________________________
Angelique EagleWoman (Wambdi A. WasteWin), Assistant Professor of Law at Hamline University School of Law, currently on visitorship with the University of Kansas School of Law and Center for Indigenous Nations Studies, member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation
One of the greatest challenges currently facing Tribal Nations and indigenous peoples in North America and South America is the ability to sustain economies while surrounded by capitalism. Traditional tribal values are often at odds with the economic philosophy that Tribal Nations are now surrounded by with the formation of the European-descendant countries (e.g. Canada, the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, etc.). Tribal Nations now find themselves in the midst of capitalist market economies that are navigated successfully by those motivated by self-interest and greed.
These types of economies have made it possible for sharp dealings, outright theft, false promises, and governmental/legal sanctioning of the dispossession of tribal peoples from their resources, lands, and any other item found to have value on the capitalist market -- including cultural and spiritual items and ideas. The blatant stealing of Native cultural and intellectual property is prevalent from public school mascots to name brand clothing, automobiles, government symbols, marketing campaigns, and military equipment. Capitalist market economies are based upon the fast buck and catchy advertisement with no regard for the distortion created or the lives impacted when important and sacred Native imagery is transformed into slogans and disconnected from Native culture.
Through the lens of a capitalist market economy, the tribal values are viewed and relegated to “primitive,” “socialistic,” and “wasteful” where every idea and product is not directed to purchase on the market. In turn through the lens of tribal values, the capitalist values are viewed as actively encouraging greed, treachery, lies, and fraudulent behavior.
Tribes historically have entered into commerce with other Tribal Nations, individual traders, and representatives from other countries. The long history of deceit and manipulation in interactions between the Tribal Nations and the European-descendant countries in North and South America can be traced back to the value conflicts between the two systems of commerce. Indigenous peoples never envisioned the world and the components of the world as commodities for exchange. The rules of trade and exchange for tribal peoples have been governed by kinship and ethical rules that were not adhered to by the Europeans and Euro-Americans that the tribal peoples were forced into contact with. The foundation of economic prosperity for Tribal Nations and indigenous peoples in the Americas has been severely undermined by the colonial mentality of parasitic draining of the indigenous host. By recognizing the challenges facing indigenous peoples, economic development strategies must address head-on the reality that the European-descendant countries intend to consign tribal peoples to the discards of the colonial depletion of these resource rich lands forming the continents of North and South America.
Angelique EagleWoman
___________________________________
Angelique EagleWoman (Wambdi A. WasteWin), Assistant Professor of Law at Hamline University School of Law, currently on visitorship with the University of Kansas School of Law and Center for Indigenous Nations Studies, member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation
15 comments:
there is no doubt that the arrival of the europeans to the new world has had devastating impacts. as an offspring of native mexican indians i have seen what "progress" can mean, both good and bad. that said we live in a society that believes that there is no absolutes therefore nobody is wrong and everybody is right. we have been taught that the native indians were/are noble, but by whose standards, that they don't believe in land ownership but land stewardship, yet we claim we were here first it is ours. the only differance between what happened to get to this point is that they invaded first. if my ansestors would have treked across the atlantic they would have chopped the white-man up in his own country, and they would be complaining right now. that would mean that this piece of land whatever it was called before "our capitalist captors" got here would now be a third world conglomeratoin of tribes fighting ourselves for our own land. at the same time we would be littering the land with the bodies of our tribal neighbors.
lets stop blaming them and take responsibility for "my" actions. conrary to what we've been taught there is a wrong and there is an absolute RIGHT. the white-man is here and so are you and me. we need to stop and think and not just regurgitate what we've heared. not all the problems of the world are caused by the whites.
This post stunned me a little. Well, maybe "stunned" is too strong a word, but I was taken aback.
Indian culture fascinates me, and in that respect I'm hardly unique in American society. It fascinates almost everybody. Hell, it fascinates everybody. When we employ native symbols and "intellectual property" we're expressing that fascination. It's a tribute, nothing less.
Do you have any idea how many American boys (girls too?) grow up wishing they were Indians? Do you know how many adults falsely claim to be of Indian descent?
I'm of Norwegian descent. Viking Press employs a name and symbol (a Viking ship) that characterize my ancestors. I'm not the least bit put out by this. I can't fathom why I should be. They're just names and symbols. The publisher wouldn't have chosen them for reasons of disdain.
According to your argument, if you have a single book in your shelf published by Viking Press, you're implicitly stealing my intellectual property.
No doubt capitalism clashes with native economics, by their very natures. But rather than get into the nitty-gritty of that clash I'll just ask rhetorically what could possibly be done about it. Capitalism ain't going nowhere, quite the contrary.
Native Americans, north and south, were treated worse than any other culture in human history. I believe native lands should be preserved. I'd like to see the culture preserved as well. I believe "stolen" lands should be returned to the greatest extent possible. And I believe tribes should be granted all the autonomy they want, even to the point of national independence.
I'm white. I'm European. Hell, I'm even a capitalist. But I'm also completely on your side.
VM: I agree that we need to live together. No one is going anywhere. The chanllenge in so doing is the pretense by governments that they wish to become a sort of honest broker in the process. It is my firm belief that if that desire were sincere, we wouldn't have the situation we have today.
Neither apportioning blame nor romanticizing Native peoples as noble, infallible beings will result in much. However, if you and I are entering a deal, but my main goal is to rob you, we aren't going to get anywhere either.
Let's put this in purely business terms. We could talk about this in terms of conducting "gap analysis" -- a pretty common undertaking for any organization wanting to evolve.
You must firt have a fair assessment of where you are, a clear vision of where you want to be and then tactics are identified to get you there. Assessment standards (I.E. measures of accountability) areput in place to make sure that things are progressing as they should.
This is, obviously, a simplified version of gap analysis, but lets apply it to seeking change in Native affairs.
Were are we currently? Low levels of trust between parties involved, an unwillingness to acknowledge inequities by many in power, etc. If we can't say where we are, we can never identify what's needed to move on.
Colleen
Stephen:
I hope this helps explain the difference between the use of Viking symbols and Native intellectual property that I hope I don't make a mess of in trying to explain.
Peoples who have had their identities striped from them, indoctrinated to believe that their "Indian-ness" was bad, had their languages taken away, and so on need to be able to claim their identity proudly as their own.
It must be rather galling to find that those who stomped your identity into the ground, then used it -- in many chases, one could argue, cartoonishly -- as symbols of their own making.
Reclaiming identity goes hand-in-hand with reclaiming pride.
No one ever striped the Norse of their Viking identity, lands, myths, language, etc. On the contrary, "Viking" is a term of power. This is not so, for peoples who have been treated otherwise.
Does that help?
Thanks for commenting.
Colleen
I hear you CG. And you know, from our conversations offline, that we're on the same side. But I don't agree that use of Indian-related symbols is theft of native cultural property, as Ms. EagleWoman claims.
A culture's "right" to symbols is not a function of the amount of suffering its members endured. The Jews, for instance, lost six million souls in the Holocaust; does that entitle them to (say) six symbols that non-Jews aren't allowed to use?
The First Amendment grants me the right to display the image of a tomahawk on my t-shirt. The amendment will never be overturned. The argument is moot. But just for fun, suppose a culture could claim a symbol as its own. Would you want the Italians telling you to take Roman numerals off your clock? How about the arrowhead symbol in Indian culture? Surely you're aware that flint knapping was practiced in Europe long, long before the Americas were populated. And I could go on and on. Nobody owns symbols.
I graduated from the University of Illinois, where a twenty year campaign was conducted to retire Chief Illiniwek, the school mascot. I think there are more important causes, for instance alcoholism on the reservations.
Hi SP:
Let me attempt to drill down each of your points.
1) The American Constitution entitles many people to many things -- the right to bear arms is one that Americans would be better off without. What someone has a right to and what is the right thing to do aren't always the same.
2) Corporations own symbols; individuals claim intellectual property rights; religions lay claim to various icons, as examples.
The point Professor EagleWoman was making, if I may be so bold, was regarding the prevailing attitudes in a capitalist marketplace where Native symolism is used to sell products while the cultures these symbols represent are devalued and denigrated.
3) In terms of mascots, it can be difficult for someone (myself included) who comes from the dominating culture to appreciate the impact that caricaturization of one's culture can have.
Alcoholism is indeed an important issue for many. (I have only my own family to look to for this!) It is also a symptom of something larger. Self-hatred; despair; poverty; lack of access to health care, economic opportunity or education contribute to all forms of abuse across all cultures.
Ascribing value to one's identity is one element of dealing with the symptom. Surely, this must be more important than one's right to preserving a culturally-insensitive mascot.
So, yes, the argument can be taken to extremes, but what's the point? It misses the larger issue.
(And I've never seen Native groups use, for example, a shamrock to promote themselves.)
Let's keep talking.
For information as to intellectual and cultural property rights, please see: http://ankn.uaf.edu/IKS/rights.html
Tribal people have intellectual and cultural property rights as do others.
The point of the piece I posted was on the economic practices surrounding Native peoples and the way in which Native ownership has been disregarded from land to intellectual property to cultural symbols, etc. etc.
Thank you,
Angelique EagleWoman
Angelique: Thanks for this link. It's a well-organized site for anyone who wants to have a look. C
A Comment from Becca
I saw the impact of this in Bethel and the Bush villages around it: Native people there want what the white man offers a “the best things,” and they have nearly given up on the traditional lifestyle, seeing it as less than ideal. It’s common to see a sad looking shack of a house with fish or moose drying on a rack and a satellite dish on the roof. But there are no jobs for them in their villages, so they have no money to pay the bills for those things, so it ends up with tax payers footing the bill for people in Chuathbaluk to watch digital TV and eat frozen pizza and drink Coke or Pepsi, and then we call then slothful or lazy for not working and sucking on the welfare system, and we restrict their hunting or fishing because over-harvesting (by the white man) has damaged fish and game stocks...its sad.
Hi again, CG.
1) Agree.
2) We're not talking about copyrighted corporate logos or individual property rights, such as a musical composition. We're talking about common symbols such as (we might as well address the most insulting example) a cigar store Indian. Nobody, even the Indians, owns the rights to cigar store Indians.
As for what Ms. EagleWoman meant, I don't dispute your interpretation. But I'm referring to her accusation of theft. Putting a cigar store Indian in front of my cigar store is, granted, demeaning. But it isn't theft.
3) Again, agree. I imagine that if I were Indian and saw a mascot (a non-Indian) running across the football field in a flowing headdress, doing a little dance that looked like some kind of affected two-step, I'd be incensed. But the mascot isn't stealing.
I looked at the link. I'm sorry, but it's a link to many other links, and rather than try to read all that material I request that someone just point me in the direction of the legal citations.
Remember, guys, I'm on your side. I just don't think that when I dressed up as an Indian as a boy I was committing cultural theft.
Stephen:
If you are speaking strictly to law, I can't answer you. However, cultural identity is a concept that is being widely discussed and debated and there has been a recent UN declaration to this end. Please see below.
There is also an interesting interview with Michael Brown, professor of anthropology at William College in MA and the author of Who Owns Native Culture? at: http://www.jhtl.org/book_reviews/2003_2004/sanders.pdf.
His website is at: http://www.williams.edu/go/native/
(Just a note that I'm not endorsing him. I haven't gained a thorough understanding of his approach, though, on the surface, it seems balanced.)
Also, you might want to look at Sections 11 and 12 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Article 11
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature.
2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to
their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.
Article 12
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practice, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to
maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains.
2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned.
Article 13
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies,
writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
2. States shall take effective measures to ensure this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political,
legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of
interpretation or by other appropriate means.
The plain language version of the declaration is at: http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddirplain.html.
Colleen
Thanks for the post and the ensuing discussion. I wish I had something profound to contribute, but like many americans I find myself somewhat uninformed on indigenous affairs.
Although my feelings on this post resemble some of the previous comments, I've given it more thought than anything else I've read recently. I hope this says it succeeded on some level.
This might not be precisely on point, but I have my own thoughts on capitalism. I think it's somewhat like religion, in that it has been a vehicle for good and an enabler of bad.
While capitalism can and does attract and provide reward for greed, it's opposite (in terms of economic systems) - socialism - can encourage and lead to authoritarianism.
As someone who leans to the left on the American political scale, the thought that I'm sitting here defending capitalism makes me a little ill (much as when I hear a political conservative rave about the supposed universal utility of the "free market"). However, I can't accept that it's the root of all evil either. While I've already admitted my ignorance on certain issues, I suspect (admittedly, without any evidence) that the problems and issues faced by indigenous people can be blamed on more than just capitalism.
JK:
I agree that capitalism isn't the sole reason for the problems faced by Native peoples. Advanced European firepower (at the time of contact), a belief in the superiority of Christianity and European cultures, etc. are also to blame. Where the capitalist system has, IMO, done a lot of damage the Tribal Nations is in what it ascribes value to and our (white society's) seeming worship of those things to the exclusion of all else. That's not a terribly original statement, but it would be difficult to argue that our focus has been on much other than the accumulation of wealth.
And maybe arguing which of all the evils visited on First Nations peoples is the worst isn't as important as a sincere understanding that we've done things the wrong way based on some pretty horrendous beliefs and values and need to turn things around.
Thanks for dropping by.
Colleen
Becca:
Restriction of traditional hunting and fishing rights has been prevalent throughout North America. It's a dismal situation that has resulted in starvation, disease, economic disadvantage and dependance. And you're right, we keep blaming the victim.
If it was done to me, I'd have gone mad by now.
Thanks for your comment.
Colleen
If I may, I'd like to apologize in advance for this comment. I feel like I may have gone on way too long. Also, I hope I didn't stir things up too much. Although I speak sometimes in "certain" terms (suggesting I'm speaking from conviction); in reality I'm anything but certain. I've only spoken up because I'm fascinated by the discussion and I'm interested in hearing someone else's opinion. I hope you don't mind...
To me the most important thing is understanding what was done in the past, what continues to happen today, and why. The reason for my comment was that I think I may disagree (in part) on the 'why' part. I think understanding 'why' indigenous people are mistreated is critical. Not only does it apply to this issue, but I also think it serves as an important lesson for our dealings with people all over the globe who represent different backgrounds or cultures (than our own).
As I said before, I'm not terribly well informed on the subject, but I always thought the underlying cause of the mistreatment of indigenous peoples was a lack of understanding or familiarity with their culture, rather than a skewed or inferior belief system (which the post seems to be suggesting). It seems to me that humanity in general has a social handicap - we tend to fear or distrust things which we don't understand. While this fear may have provided a certain amount of evolutionary advantage to our distant ancestors - I think it has lead to many, many instances of mistrust, mistreatment, and conflict when different cultures collide. I'm on really shaky ground here (I'm no historian), but doesn't this pattern of misunderstanding, mistrust, fear and conflict go back further than Christianity, western European civilization, or capitalism?
I think that under any economic or belief system, you can (and do) have people (or groups of people) who desire what other people have... and go about taking it from them (whether it be land, resources, or property). When those two groups of people represent two very different cultures, I believe the lack of understanding that I speak of serves to dehumanize the other group, providing "justification" to sometimes take horrible steps to obtain what is desired. There's no question that capitalism can reward greed. I'm also loath to admit it, but U.S. culture is shallower than I'd prefer. But I also believe that certain things like land, certain types of property, and even some intellectual property have inherent value. It doesn't take capitalism to assign value or provide reward for it's taking.
Although it may be my own lack of understanding doing the speaking now, I think it was this lack of understanding which begat mistrust, fear and ultimately violence in colonial times. Furthermore, I believe this fundamental lack of understanding lead to stereotyping and prejudice, which fueled continuing mistreatment, injustice, and exploitation (to this day). In that light, I think that the more a culture's symbols, traditions, and practices are shared and embraced by others - the better off we are. In this way we learn to appreciate another culture (albeit slowly). We gain that elusive understanding that I've been referring to... and with it we gain more universal empathy. It's one reason why I'm optimistic (if only a little) about the so called "information age." While this age has brought it's own share of baggage (the seemingly unfiltered flow of misinformation), it seems to me that it also offers the possibility of delivering us from our true Achilles' heel: misunderstanding and ignorance.
Post a Comment