From: "Gerard Philippe Menos" <firestone.Princeton.EDU!gpmenos>
Subject: Reply to Peshewegunzh
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:02:46 GMT

Original Sender: "Gerard Philippe Menos" <firestone.Princeton.EDU!gpmenos>

Peshewegunzh <mthvax.cs.miami.edu!mamia!peshe> wrote:

> "Gerard Philippe Menos" <firestone.Princeton.EDU!gpmenos> previously wrote:

> > I have wondered if you are a CS student at the university of
miami,
> > running around in Nikes.

Please excuse me again for this trivialization and for my prying
eyes.  As I previously said, your dynamic personality piqued my
curiousity.  E-mail (and Usenet) only gives a small part of the other
person.

>...
> (nor am I working on either) I do have access to an account
> on a system with links to a university, under the auspices
> of the Tecumseh Educational Foundation.

Aha.

> > Please do not be offended by my apparent trivializations and
> > stereotyping --these characterizations are only meant to point out
> > that it is far too late to avoid some extent of assimilation.

> I think it's important to use some of the tools that have
> developed in modern times, rather than become caught up
> and lost in them, which appears to be the overarching
> characteristic of American culture and society. That is
> the difference between empowering survival and the
> surrender that is assimilation. It seems to me that this
> is what you are saying in some of your other comments.


Yes, absolutely.  That is indeed what I was trying to say.

In general, I feel that it's critical to maintain a balance between
physical/material and spiritual evolution (obviously not an original
thought on my part);  overemphasis on one side or the other (physical
versus spiritual) has often been the undoing of a culture, as shown
by the rise and fall of many civilizations, including ours.

We have many tools at our disposal to assist in our evolution --some
technological (like the Internet) and some spiritual (such as
exsercises in concentration, focus, and meditation).  We grow best,
IMHO, through a discriminating and balanced use of all tools
available.  We grow the least, IMHO, when we unconsciously and
blindly accept the propoganda that supports the present power
structure, or as you put it so well, "the surrender that is
assimilation."

> > It sounds like you also have your own blindspot here, as you also
> > seem to have a preconception as to who is the "good" Indian (those
> > who agree with your particular polarisation) and who is the "bad"
> > Indian (those who have a differing view, to any degree).

> I have some views which are the products of some strong
> experiences.


Please understand that I would never want to intentionally diminish
your views or the sacred experience that shaped them.  So please
excuse this imperfect vessel when I fail to live up to my intentions
and ideals.

> However, I'm pretty tender about being too
> hard on other Indians. I don't think you can point to any
> statement where I've characterized those Indian

I think you're right.  I don't think I can point to any of your
statements to explicitly support this interpretation of your views (I
would have to re-read our previous correspondence to make sure, but
that is not important).  So, it is easily a mis-interpretation on my
part.

What irked me (if memory serves) was that your description of how the
governing elite define the "good" and "bad" Indian, and an *apparent*
implication  that those who disagree with you were uncritical dupes
of the governing elite.  Your statements seemed to me to be overly
categorical, overly-assumptive, and an oversimplification of the
diversity of views and experiences out there.   *I* then began to
make my own assumptions about your views on the "good" and "bad"
Indian.  But they were my *own* assumptions and they were not
explicit in your statements.  So, I sincerely apologize for reading
too much into your statements.


By the way, you won't find a more dogmatic (yet open-minded :-)
person than me, so *who* am I to call a kettle black....

> individuals who don't hold my exact opinion as "bad." I
> usually reserve that appellation for the behavior of
> those who've put them between a rock and a hard place! When
> another Indian speaks on an issue to do with Indians, I
> have to consider his views because no doubt he's lived it
> out.


I read this with great interest.

I should have assumed this to be the case, rather than  assume the
reverse  --the burdon should not be on you to precede everything you
say with "in my opinion," etc.  So, again, I apologize for
misconstruing the strength of your tone as dogmatism.


> > As one born in Haiti, with some roots still there, I believe that
> > things are not quite so black and white as you are conveying, yet
> > again.
> >
> > In my opinion, the new Administration has many areas in which to
> > prove themselves as agents of "change."  Depending on what they do,
> > over the course of --say-- the next 3 months, will show us if they
> > Bill Clinton was sincere or not in his various campaign promises.

> The new harsher measures against Haitians who only seek
> what the Europeans now here originally sought, were put
> in place at the direction and request of the incoming
> administration. I guess as Indians who were willing to
> share with those earlier refugees, that despite the
> depredations, many of us still are willing to share with
> the Haitians, too. I think Americans who've bought into
> the comfort culture have lost the true spirit of what was
> supposed to happen here, which was represented in the
> extending of welcome to those hapless colonists by the
> indigenous peoples.


Perhaps you are right, here, and I am giving the new Administration
too much benefit of the doubt.

I do not have any illusions that the Clinton Administration is going
to ever swing the doors open in a manner that is completely equitable
and non-racist.  However, I do see some positive possibilities in
what is going on, if our objective is to help people achieve a better
life --no matter what part of this hemisphere they inhabit.

First, the policy of continuing to discourage (please excuse the
euphemism) Haitians from coming to the U.S. will save some lives,
since the method of transport across the Carribean is very dangerous;
many have drowned and been eaten by sharks (of course, the Coast
Guard shares some responsibilty here).


Secondly, what many of my fellow Haitians want most is a better life
in Haiti, not in the U.S.  Jean-Bertand Aristide is probably not the
only Haitian who would like to go home [or to stay home].  Most who
leave are not necessarily coming to the land of opportunity and
freedom, but are escaping poverty and violence *and* leaving home and
family behind.  I know this is the story of many immigrants, and we
should not be making choices for other people and excluding them from
this land.  But if many would-be immigrants would themselves prefer
the option of staying in an improved Haiti, then the objective of
improving internal conditions in Haiti is *as important* (or more so)
than the aspect of immigration policy.  That is why I am eager to see
the U.S. play a more active role in assisting social and economic
democracy in Haiti;  even small steps in this direction would make a
difference.  There are indications that this may be a stronger aspect
of Clinton's policy toward Haiti than Bush's cold war era political
calculations would allow.

I am only trying to caution my liberal brothers and sisters (this
comment is not addressed to you, Peshewegunzh, as an individual),
that it may be a bit patronizing to focus on the "immigration" aspect
of the Haitian question apart from the internal crisis in Haiti.  To
focus on immigration only is to say to Haitians:  "oh, you poor
people, we understand and support your desire to come to this more
advanced, more benevolent environment."  In addition to addressing
the question of access to this Land, the U.S. should also be
assisting to rebuild and de-criminalize those countries that U.S.
foreign policy has helped to undermine and corrupt.

Lord knows, after supporting a string of criminally insane dictators
in Haiti, the U.S. has a responsibility to do some good *in* Haiti.
But, at the *same* time, it is necessary to adjust the
presently-racist immigration policies.

I would make a similar same argument --that internal development is
as important as "immigration" policy-- with respect to the U.S.
relationship with Mexico and Central America.

Will these things come to pass?  I don't know.  Will postive changes
more likely come to pass (regardless of who is the President of the
U.S.) if you, Peshewegunzh, and I and other like-minded individuals
ally our minds and spirits to these common objectives and each
--collectively *and* in our own way-- pursue them?  Yes, of this I
have no doubt, though the time and suffering required is unknown to
me.

Peshewegunzh, I want to thank you for your always thought-provoking
messages.

With all good wishes,
Phil Menos
gpmenos@firestone.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: alt.native