From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Native Alaskans "Poachers"?
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:12:26 GMT

Peshewegunzh writes:
>
>I honestly find it difficult to accept Floyd Davidson's version of the
>"poaching" case:
>
>> I don't think "appeal" is quite the right term either.  It was more
>> like they demanded enforcement...
>
>From some other sources I've recently heard from, it appears this is
>at least an uninformed statement.

So you provide no facts, arguments, or documentation...

And why did you ignore through your whole article each and every
instance of exactly this type of statement that I pointed out in
your previous article?  And is that the only thing in my whole
"version" that you will consider disagreeing with?  :-)  The
rest of your article didn't have anything to do with my "version"
of the poaching case.

The original subject was excessive sentences, which I question.
Another poster has mentioned 10 year terms, though no one else has
suggested that my facts are wrong, and Peshe you have not posted
facts about anything.  I've been accusing you of posting with no
facts and no knowledge of the subject.

You have yet to deny that is the case, you just keep doing it.

How about the ten year sentences?  I did a little more research
and found that the last hunter, not yet sentenced to my knowledge,
is Glenn Iyahuk, the boat captain.  If he was convicted of the
same crimes as the other four, the maximum sentence he faces is
ten MONTHS.  So far the maximum sentence has been 6 months, which
was given to the boat navigator (who selected animals to be caught
and declared that he was responsible for the actions of the crew).

Mr. Omiak, the navigator, is a member of the Little Diomede City
Council and a member of the Eskimo Walrus Commission.  (Peshe
should do some research and find out what the Eskimo Whaling
Commission and the Eskimo Walrus Commission might do on rainy
days.)

>> >I think it is somewhat self-serving that Europeans are being cast as the
>> >last best hope of "saving" the Eskimo villages, when they have been
>> >the primary cause of the destruction of native self determination.
>>
>> It is more than somewhat self-serving that anyone should claim
>> that their culture or cultural needs should be imposed on another
>> culture.  That is what you are doing, Peshe.
>
>Nonsense. I did not advocate the use of white men's bureaucratic laws, white

You just did it again.  Who are you to define what is good or bad
for a culture that you know nothing about?

Previously you made some rather broad statements about how the
"environmental movement" relates or not to Eskimo people.  Now you
are defining what is or is not destructive to their culture.  Yet
you have not indicated any understanding of Eskimo culture, or
traditional ways, or current situation, or history, (or any
understanding of the environmental movement or the environment in
Alaska either).

As an Indian your thoughts and ways to some degree *define* what
Indian culture is, and I have no right nor reason to debate the
stance you have previously taken on religion and environment as
it pertains to *your* culture.  I haven't enough knowledge of and
have no stake in your culture.  I am interested in learning
though, so I read and enjoy many of your articles.  But...

It is apparent that you believe that lower-48 Indian and Eskimo
cultures are essentially the same and that the history and
traditions are equivalent.  Your basis for even participating in
this discussion seems to be that your own history gives you the
right to declare yourself "correct" in respect to Eskimo culture.

As an Indian American you are no more able to do that than I as a
European derived American can.  If I said that my "Europeaness"
somehow makes my perception of Native Alaskan ways better than
someone else's then I'd be doing the same thing you are.  That is
a common event in history Peshe, as you like to note.  And that is
why I take offense that you are doing it, even if you are Indian
instead of European (genetically at least).

And you will note that *I* am not doing that Peshe.  I'm telling
you that I've hunted and eaten walrus myself.  I know something
about why and wherefore the Eskimo people are doing what they are
doing.  And it does not come from being one race or another Peshe.
It isn't superior genes.  It is experience.  It is a real live
stake in what happens to that culture.

The environmental movement and its relation to Eskimo culture is
too complicated to explain either in the terms you did, which
separate the two entirely, or in any attempt that I might make
here in a few sentences or even pages.  It is definitely not what
you said it was.

At least it isn't to those who live it here and now.  My eldest
son is a subsistence hunter who lives in the Yup'ik village of
Kipnuk.  They depend upon birds, seal, fish, and walrus.  The
basis of their culture is environmentalism.  My grandchildren's
entire way of life depends upon how well my son knows his culture.

To you this may not be much more than an opportunity to bash
European culture, which may be fun and I do it myself, but it is
also pointless.  To me this environment vs.  culture is one of the
most significant problems facing the future of my entire family.
My children and grandchildren are Yup'ik by culture.  Where and
how they will live in the future after I am long gone depends on
how this matter is handled now by me.  We are not talking about
some strange thing called The Eskimo, we are talking about my
family, and the future of everything I've ever done.

You might now understand why I am so adamant and take offense that
you spout the same re-hashed arrogance that Europeans have for so
long.

>men's police, white men's lawyers, white men's courts and white men's jails
>being imposed on Alaskan natives.  80% of male natives end up in those white
>men's jails.

Maybe on your reservation Peshe, but not in any Alaskan village.  The
numbers here are not good, but they aren't that bad.

Oh, BTW, can you document that number?  ;-) It's the first "fact"
you have offered as support.  And I don't believe it.

> Moreover, the imposition of such laws are the result of a
>scandalous conceit in which such natives were treated as chattels for sale
>by European powers (including the United States) last century.

How, when, and where does that statement apply to Eskimo people in
Alaska?  Maybe they made chattels out of your ancestors, but...
My children don't feel that way about their ancestors.  (They are
a bit embarrassed about some barbarians on their father's side,
but that is balanced by their mother's very sophisticated culture.
:-) (See Peshe, I like to bash Europeans too!)

>> Europeans are responsible only to the extent that they must stop
>> their destructive interference.  But so must other, non-Europeans.
>
>Which non-Europeans have established an economic, political and military
>regime in Alaska? That's nonsense.

You prove my point.  Are those the only ways to interfere?  You
may think so, but you haven't been here to find out?  You, by
claiming to speak for them, are interfering!  The fact that
someone else may have done worse does not absolve you.  You are
spouting nonsense again and as such proved the point you argued
against.

> And Europeans are responsible for more
>than simply ceasing interference (which they will never willingly do, by
>allowing Eskimo independence, for instance).

What do you know about Eskimo independence, for instance?  The
very wording of your statement suggests ignorance.  Eskimo people
consider themselves sovereign.  Incidentally the Russian
government also considered each tribe in Alaska as a sovereign
entity.  The US government, however, is still trying figure it
out...  I don't know the current status, but at one point state
government considered it so.  Maybe you meant Canadian Eskimos?

> Although natives may
>magnaminously request only repentance rather than full restoration.

Is that true?  I don't call that the truth.  Actually I don't know
many Native people here who have any interest in any repentance.
That just sounds like you whining again.  There are some things to
be restored however...  and some things to build or rebuild.  Of
course I'm talking about Alaska...  I don't know where you are
talking about.

You really must not relate your culture to one you know nothing about.

>> You claim that as a non-European derived American your prejudices
>> are somehow more "correct"?  Gimme a break.
>
>The question is not one of prejudices which are all equivalent, but of

Yes, your prejudice is equivalent, that was my point.  Again you are
proving my points.

>truth and justice, however uncomfortable those considerations might make
>guilty consciences. It's convenient for those who don't want to
>remember how they achieved their preeminent position to ignore the
>historical realities.

Truth and justice also isn't you claiming that your prejudices are
the facts of life for another culture that you know nothing about.
There are things worse than those who forget history or want to.
There are those who know it and insist on repeating it.  For you
to complain about history and then repeat it is not good Peshe,
not good at all.  Above you called that kind of thing "scandalous
conceit", and I agree.

>> The respect that each culture chooses to give to
>> the law is what will make it work or fail.
>
>Those laws are the products of the American legal bureaucracy, which is
>about as alienated from any sort of native sensibility, as is humanly
>possible. Whatever the good intentions, that spells trouble.

The laws passed in the 1800's and even well into the 1900's fit
your description fairly well.  Do you wish to go out on another
limb and specifically say that the Marine Mammals Act fits that
bill?

I'll say that it doesn't.  And that really is what started this
entire line of discussion.  Remember?  about environmental laws
like the one the people from Little Diomede were charged under?
And how it is only some white man's law?  (Check out what the
Eskimo Walrus Commission does on rainy days...)

Peshe why not get back to the subject that I originally called 
your bluff on.  I don't think you can back up what you said with
anything more than you have already, which is all prejudice, and
invalid on the face of it.

>> But I don't
>> know where I could find the facts to post here if you insist on
>> documentation.
>
>Difficult to accept your points without it.

You have not posted but one fact, or referred to one bit of
documentation, to support a word you have said.  You have not
indicated one single qualification that you have, short of Indian
genes, to make the statements you are making.  And you haven't
denied any of the facts as I've posted them (I lied a little,
there is this library about 55 miles from where I live...  it is
full of facts.  But there is a limit to how much time I'll spend
looking this up for you.)

>I do believe Floyd is expressing, in somewhat couched terms, views

Didn't I ask you once before to let me put my own foolish thoughts
into words.  Your arrogant insertion of your thoughts into my
sentences is exactly the same as forcing your culture on my
children.  Get off it.

It isn't that you believed that so much as you hoped that, but..

>similar to those of non-native protestors of Ojibwa spearfishing in
>Wisconsin and elsewhere. We know that those protestors often try to
>portray natives exercising traditional and treaty rights as violators
>of environmental and game laws.

Peshe you have a habit of trying to spear white people with little
off the subject arrows like that one.  You missed again.  I know
little about the spearfishing in Wisconsin, and what I do know
puts me smack on the side of the Indians there.  I also happen to
have been born in Washington state, and support the fishing rights
of Indians in that state.  How could I not?  For one thing I have
speared whitefish, drifted with a gilnet, and built more than one
fish wheel.  Have you ever even been to a fish camp, much less an
Eskimo fish camp?  Chuckle chuckle... I ran one.

I admit to some bias in that, because my children and
grandchildren depend on exactly those types of "rights" to
continue the lifestyle they understand the best.

Once again, before posting this, I've discussed it with a true
expert on Eskimo culture, not just a student like myself.  This
particular lady works for Martin Ivan, a Yup'ik, and the State
Representative from Akiak.  She also recently was offered a job as
an aide to US Senator Murkowski, and turned it down...  She
basically agreed with what I've stated here.  She has not heard
one word of protest about the trials or the sentences.  She
is Yup'ik and lives in Bethel, AK. at the moment.

Floyd

-- 
floyd@ims.alaska.edu    A computer guest of the Institute of Marine Science
Salcha, Alaska          at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks