From: beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!selway.umt.edu!demeler (Borries Demeler/Biophysics)
Subject: Degree of Blood?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:52:28 GMT

Original-Sender: selway.umt.edu!demeler (Borries Demeler/Biophysics)

| Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 16:49:00 GMT
| Original-Sender: em.lanl.gov!ANDERSON_DAVID_A
| Original-Subject: RE: Five Videos on Native Americans
|
|      I take great exception to terminology used in Brock's review of the
| Spirit of Crazy Horse.  He perpetuates the falsehood instigated by Mary
| Ellen Crow Dog and Peter Matthiesen.  This is the idea that historically
| AIM was on one side and "mixed bloods" were on the other side.  Both
| Crow Dog and Matthiesen go to great lengths to explain that they really
| mean political opponents of AIM when they use the term "mixed bloods."
| As a half breed, I find it very offensive that a term of genetic content
| is used as a term of political condemnation.  This is just as racist and
| unacceptable as the use of "nigger" or "redskin" or any other racial
| epithet.
|
|      Russell Means, Dennis Banks, Mary Ellen Crow Dog and Leonard Peltier
| are all mixed bloods.  AIM began as a political movement in the Minnesota
| prison system among primarily mixed blood inmates.  At Wounded Knee there
| were mixed bloods on both sides.  Dick Wilson, genetically, was more Indian
| than many people on the opposite side behind the barricades.
|
|      A great disservice is done to the Native community by perpetuating
| this confused terminology.  If you read Crow Dog's autobiography you will
| see that she is, pathetically, nearly schizophrenic over this issue.  Her
| book is an excellent example of how this terminology has damaged many people
| of Native descent.
|
|     "Mixed blood" has a genetic meaning.  It does not mean
| "non-traditional" or "anti-AIM."  To use this term for political purposes
| is highly prejudicial and passes blanket judgement on the largest Native
| Nation in North American: the mixed bloods.  If the video Brock refers to
| perpetuates this racism, it is neither "historically correct" nor "perfect
| for the classroom" but, rather, another indignity heaped upon Native
| Americans.


      I would like to comment on David's contribution, because he said many
things I believe are very important.

      In my experience it is exactly this misconception about the significance
(or better: the lack of significance) of "degree of blood" which causes racist
attitudes. People like Mary Crow Dog and Peter Matthiessen fall victim to this
misconception, as does the government in its effort to separate Indians and
non-Indians on the basis of their degree of blood. When my Indian friends call
themselves "proud Indians" I don't think they mean that they are proud of the
amount of Indian blood they have, they are proud of their culture, language
and history or whatever they have retained of it despite adverse
circumstances.

      There is a long history of this misconception, with tragic consequences
all along: The Nazis in the Third Reich killed people on the basis of their
degree of jewish or gypsie blood, in America is is the discrimination of
Blacks, Hispanics and Indians (or any degree thereof) etc. In reality, the
upbringing, language, social environment, cultural ties, religion, education
and political persuasion are the factors determining an individual's position
in society. What credit could ever be derived from ones ever so accidental
genetic makeup?

      Often, there is some sort of correlation between the "degree of blood"
and the position, which by no means is the cause for the position an
individual has in society. But that correlation is not the rule. For example,
I know of a Sinti (gypsie) lady who was adopted by the Crow in Montana as a
girl and she is every bit as Crow as her friends and relatives (not blood
relatives - of course). I'm one quarter Sinti myself, grew up in Germany, went
to "white" schools and now live with Indians. My position is a clean mixture
of all these cultures, and definitely not derived from my degree of blood
of this or that ethnic group.

      Certain aspects of the social position, often the political persuasion
and religion, are not understood or tolerated out of ignorance by other groups
of society, which then causes resentment, fear and racism. In my experience,
people prefer to look for differences rather than for similarities (why?),
prefer to borrow a cheap slogan rather than think for themselves (why?). I
found all stereotypes about Indians, Hmong, Sinti etc. to be non-
representative, untrue and misleading.

      Racism - just like reverse racism - is an ugly thing, and nobody should
foster it, it is a useless concept, it has no merit whatsoever. Earlier this
year, in "Science", I believe, there was an article in which a team of
molecular biologists compared the genetic makeup of all different peoples of
this world. Their findings, in brief, were that the genetic variation among
the many groups of people was too small to warrant classification into
different "races". Sounds familiar? Indians (without any fancy genetic
analysis) have been saying for a long time that we are all brothers and
sisters. Well, I'm sure glad we have "scientific proof" now!

      Let me close by saying we should all look for common ground, common
interests and try to understand inherent differences among us, rather than to
emphasize them. There is a lot more to be learned from the uniqueness of an
individual or a group than to be feared.

In good spirit,
-Borries

********************************************************************************
	Borries Demeler
	University of Montana
	Division of Biological Sciences
	Biophysics
	Missoula, Montana 59812
	(demeler@selway.umt.edu)
********************************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.native