From: idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Mike Wilson)
Subject: Re: Comments on the 2nd RFD: soc.culture.native
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:13:06 GMT


gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:


>  CHARTER: Soc.culture.native is for the discussion  of  issues  relating  to
>  native populations throughout the world.  For the purposes of defining this
>  newsgroup, "native" is considered roughly synonymous with  "aboriginal"  or
>  "indigenous."  All of these terms designate the existing descendents of the
>  peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country at the  time  when
>  persons  of  a different culture or ethnic origin colonized that territory,
>  and who today  live  more  in  conformity  with  their  particular  social,
>  economic  and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of
>  the country of which they now form a part, under a  State  structure  which
>  incorporates  mainly  the  national, social and cultural characteristics of
>  other segments of the population which are now predominant.

This addition sounds too exclusive for my tastes.  Not all native
people have been colonized, and in our honest moments we admit that
native people have done some colonizing and oppressing ourselves.
In other words, I don't like for us Native People to  be defined
by negation: that is, we are Native People because we are in 
opposition to oppressive Europeans.  Native life, it seems to
me, involves so many other things: family, ceremony, relatedness,
tricksterism, balance, and so forth.  This is the positive. 
At a pow-wow, or another gathering with people from other
Native Nations, listening to the music, watching our beautiful
people, maybe eating fry bread, I would be horrified to 
think that all we have in common is our oppression.  

Furthermore, not all native people have been "colonized"; many
are still living more or less apart and in peace with those around 
them. Just because you are a native person doesn't mean you are
by definition at war with an oppressor of some kind.  Some Native
people like Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Elija Harper have even joined
the "oppressor" governments. Are they then no longer representative
of native life? 

What I object to even more in this addition, however, is the 
statement that Indian Nations form a part or are "under" a 
State structure.  With that little phrase, you have effectively
undermined the sovereign status of Indian Nations in America.
Many Native Nations consider themselves sovereign, by law and
by nature, to countries like Canada and the United States.  Our
relationship to these governments involves treaty obligations,
going both ways, made between equal and independent people, 
just as the US makes arms treaties with Russia or trade treaties 
with Mexico.  I feel pretty strongly about this one.

Why not leave it sort of vague as it was before?  It seems to
me that it left open the possibility of discussion among all
KINDS of native people, urban and reservation, dislocated and
intact.  The first order of discussion in the new newsgroup
(assuming it passes) might be a discussion of Native or Indian
identity, which is essentially what we are dealing with here.
I'm not at all sure it's something that can be resolved in
a charter (or anywhere else, finally).

Mike


==========================
Michael Wilson
idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
==========================