The Myth of the Indian
Jun. 17th, 2012 09:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarah_tvHow to say this...
I'm running into these landmines, here. One of the people I follow on facebook has gotten into an 'quote multiple different tribes' kick, for one reason or another, and while I am forgiving of a lot, and it's not horribly important, I... can't let this one go.
It's a quote by John Fire Lame Deer, which the quote calls him a chief... which he's not... and he goes about chastising the White Governement... by putting down his own. At least, that's how I see it.
Now, I know the Seven Tribal Fire region has a slight issue with war now. They didn't have it back then. The concepts of Property, Trade, Government, Territory, Law, and Crime are well established, and documented, even. There was crime. There was politics. There was a lot of things. The Lokata were people, just like everywhere else, and they had their own way of handling problems, but to say that everything was sunshine and roses? Give me a break.
The Lokata are a great people, who accomplished much before having to war with the East. These are the things that this John person dismisses in his attack on the White.
John lacks scope. His quotes are likable because it plays into the self hatred of the government and the romance that was the land before America. It's just simply not true. It is the Myth of the Noble Victim being perpetuated by a charleton, and it is shameful to dismiss what you accomplished just to put down someone else. To make yourself even *Less*?
...
It was a different time. I know. He talks from the position of a 100 years after the affairs and the wars, from which he might have even witnessed a bit. He used the myth to attack and unify, because he believes, and he knows people will listen, because it's what they want to hear. He uses myth because it is prettier that way.
I much prefer the truth, than the lie, thank you.
I'm running into these landmines, here. One of the people I follow on facebook has gotten into an 'quote multiple different tribes' kick, for one reason or another, and while I am forgiving of a lot, and it's not horribly important, I... can't let this one go.
It's a quote by John Fire Lame Deer, which the quote calls him a chief... which he's not... and he goes about chastising the White Governement... by putting down his own. At least, that's how I see it.
Now, I know the Seven Tribal Fire region has a slight issue with war now. They didn't have it back then. The concepts of Property, Trade, Government, Territory, Law, and Crime are well established, and documented, even. There was crime. There was politics. There was a lot of things. The Lokata were people, just like everywhere else, and they had their own way of handling problems, but to say that everything was sunshine and roses? Give me a break.
The Lokata are a great people, who accomplished much before having to war with the East. These are the things that this John person dismisses in his attack on the White.
John lacks scope. His quotes are likable because it plays into the self hatred of the government and the romance that was the land before America. It's just simply not true. It is the Myth of the Noble Victim being perpetuated by a charleton, and it is shameful to dismiss what you accomplished just to put down someone else. To make yourself even *Less*?
...
It was a different time. I know. He talks from the position of a 100 years after the affairs and the wars, from which he might have even witnessed a bit. He used the myth to attack and unify, because he believes, and he knows people will listen, because it's what they want to hear. He uses myth because it is prettier that way.
I much prefer the truth, than the lie, thank you.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-18 11:01 pm (UTC)And the thing is, when you're a minority it's tempting to claim this wonderful, holy, whatever position - partly because the majority has told you repeatedly that you're this villain, this benighted savage at best and this vicious degenerate at worst. And it's simply not true. A culture with a mix of saints and musicians and scoffers and holy men and criminals and layabouts is much more worth remembering than any cleaned up version.
Problem is once you start buying into your own victim status, no matter how noble a victim you are, you're always going to want to remain a victim at some level. Not a survivor, not something that truly thrives.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-19 03:35 am (UTC)I just am bitter at my grandpeople, that's all. They were scared, and rightfully so, to proclaim their heritage, and while I could grab for it, it's a lot of work to just be rejected as being a whitie, you know? I don't begrudge the viewpoint. I understand it.
Of course, with my mother's side of the family, it probably was just really hard to decide which cultural identity was most important. There was so many. My Father's side, not so much, but given they came from Oklahoma, and could see the trouble brewing on the Reservation... I understand their choice, even if I resent it.
There is just a deep desire to respect what was, even if it is painful at times, than to twist it into something that it isn't to use as a social weapon. It bugs me.
As I said, I'm not Souix. I can prove somewhat that I can be Cherokee, and I probably could ask nicely and get the family tree to prove that I could be Mohawk as well. However, I really am neither now. Without the rule extensions, my parents had been the last ones who could have claimed that right. While I could, I realize that I would suffer just as much culture shock actually joining in than if I just stayed out.
I'm just a backwards mutt, trying to understand where I came from, and holding onto what little cultural identity I have before it just all goes away.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-18 11:04 pm (UTC)