|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
SUMMER
1999Sondra Ball
Mickleton MMOver the years, I have published several poems in this newsletter on Indian issues. Comments on these poems have ranged from “I love your poems” to “I hate all poetry” to “You are using this newsletter just to get published.” De gustibus.
But there’s a fourth comment made by readers, "Salem Quarter News is a Quaker publication, and you should be more positive and upbeat in the things you publish here. Your poems don’t sound Quakerly. They are too bitter and too angry. You need to write more positive and upbeat stuff.” I think that needs a reply.
This comment is usually made by the same Friends who tell me there is no real racism against Indians in the U.S. anymore, and especially none among Quakers. I think you may want to look at some evidence. Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice published its first report on violent crime against American Indians in this U.S. This report was long overdue, since similar reports were done on other races years earlier. Racism, of course, may have had nothing to do with this delay. Or, then again, it may have.
The report says that for each year between 1992 through 1996, an average of 124 Indians out of every 1,000 was a victim of a violent crime. The next highest rate for those years was 61 out of every 1,000 for Blacks, followed by 49 out of every 1,000 for Whites and 29 out of every 1,000 for Asians. By itself, this doesn’t prove racism. Another part of the data, however, strongly suggests it. Violent crimes against Blacks were overwhelmingly committed by other Blacks; violent crimes against Whites by other Whites, violent crimes against Asians by other Asians. But violent crimes against Indians were overwhelmingly committed by Whites. As a matter of fact, an Indian is at greater risk of being assaulted, beaten, raped, or murdered by a White person than is a member of any other race. This sounds like racism to me.
The violence may be even more sinister than simply racism. It may be part of the ongoing mindset that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” It might be part of the ongoing genocidal attitude so prevalent in the U.S. What’s that you’re telling me now? “Genocide in the US is a thing of the past, if it ever existed?” Okay, then let’s look at a couple of pieces of relevant data:
On December 9, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The United States Senate refused to ratify this convention until November 23, 1988; and only ratified it after the U.N. agreed to accept a partial ratification as ratification. The ratification specifies that the people, institutions, and corporations in the United States cannot be tried for genocidal acts against the aboriginal peoples of the U.S. Someone thought genocide was recent enough that this was a risk.
I am only going to mention one of the recent genocidal programs against Indians. Between 1970 and 1973, one out of every three American Indian women and girls—some as young as twelve—of child-bearing age were sterilized. This was done with the blessing of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the full cooperation of the Indian Health Services. Many of the sterilizations were done with neither knowledge nor consent of the girls and women involved. It was not uncommon for a thirteen-year-old girl to go in for a tonsillectomy and come out sterilized. In other cases, expectant mothers were told, “If you aren’t sterilized when you give birth, we will take your child away from you and have it adopted by a white couple.” It wasn’t an idle threat, either. Stealing of Indian children by social services agencies and placing them for adoption in white households was commonplace 30 years ago.
Before you counter that this was “in the past,” keep in mind that a twelve-year-old girl sterilized in 1973 would be 38 now, and still at an age when many people are choosing to have children. We’re talking about the mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, and daughters of almost all of today’s Indians. The Indians in this land today have seen, up close, an active genocidal program in operation against them. The Whites of today—some of them—created it.
“Okay,” you say, “what’s that got to do with us? We’re Quakers. We certainly don’t rape, beat, or kill Indians. We didn’t plan those genocidal programs.”
That’s probably true. But racism shows itself in other forms as well. Here are some of the more annoying statements I’ve heard from Quakers:
“So you’re a Redskin.” Folks, I don’t like being called a Redskin. Did you know that during the “colonizing” and “pioneering” days (roughly 1500–1880), “red skin” meant the hide of an Indian, just as “beaver skin” meant the hide of a beaver, and “bear skin” meant the hide of a bear? Did you know that trade items, such as tobacco pouches and hair pieces, were made from “red skins?”
“Redskin” gradually slipped into general conversation as a term for Indian. From a historical viewpoint, “redskin” is not a pleasant word. From a modern viewpoint, almost every Indian has had the word “Redskin” hurled at them in the same tone of voice as Blacks have had the word “Nigger” hurled at them.
“Do you know a good Indian name for my dog?” Really??!!! Would you ask a Black person for a good Afro-American name for your dog?
“Indians are so close to Mother Earth.” And Asians are superintelligent, and Blacks have rhythm. Hey, stereotyping is still stereotyping even if it makes the stereotyped people better than others. Not all Indians are all that close to Mother Earth. Some are just as much into greed and pollution as any greedy, polluting White.
“My great-great-grandmother was a Cherokee (or Lenapi or Mohawk) princess.” Sorry, Ma’am! (and this statement is usually made by a woman). The Cherokee, Lenapi, and Mohawk did not have royalty. When I inform offending Quakers of this, the response is usually either, “You don’t know what you are talking about,” or, “What did they call the daughter of a chief?”
In answer to the former, I double-checked with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Eastern Cherokee Nation, Delaware Nation of Oklahoma (Lenapi), and Mohawk historians before writing this. As for the latter, what do you call the daughter of your mayor or the daughter of your president? And by the way, for those who got mad when I told them they were not the descendent of an Indian princess, remember, this does not mean you aren’t the descendent of an Indian. If you’re still mad, maybe you need to ask yourself: Which is more important, an Indian ancestor or a princess ancestor? If it’s a princess ancestor, how Quakerly is that?
“I am doing an Indian sweat lodge this weekend. Would you like to come?” A “sweat lodge” among the nations that use them (and not all do) is a religious ceremony. Do you, as a Quaker, invite your friends to a “Catholic Mass I’m going to hold in my home this weekend"? Of course not! You don’t trivialize the Mass. It is true that you might hold some form of communion, but you wouldn’t call it “Catholic Mass.” You wouldn’t pretend to have the authority to perform a Catholic Mass. But I have met a number of Quakers who are perfectly willing to trivialize American Indian ceremonies, and to pretend to have the authority to perform them.
“You are being too sensitive about this.” Do you say that to Blacks who recoil at perceived racism, or do you try to understand where they are coming from?
Frankly, I have had Indian friends and relatives beaten, raped, and murdered by White men. Usually, those White men were yelling racist epithets while they were doing it. I have faced racist epithets and physical threats all my life. Most of you folks are White, and you have no idea what that kind of day-to-day demeaning does to a person.
So why do I publish “Indian” poems in Salem Quarter News? Because Indian issues are the most important social and political issues in my life. I dedicate several hours a day to Native American political and social concerns. Most of this work is done outside Quaker circles. I want to help you become aware of the political and social issues facing Indians today. Poetry is one of the primary ways that I communicate with other people. And it is very Quakerly to talk about, and to publish, pieces on social concerns.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Last modified:
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 08:19 AM
