Reflections from the Ah­nish­i­nah­bæójib­way (We, the People)


July 15, 1994

On July 7, at about 6:30 in the evening, I received a call from a Federally Recognized blood-quantum Indian, who stated that my columns were “negative writing” about the Indians and the Whites.  He said, “You should not be writing that negatively, because the White man gave you a house,” meaning the “Indian housing” funded by the United States Government for the Indian settlers to occupy Ahnishinahbæótjibway land.  I told him, “I do not live in a house built by the U.S. Government.”  I built my house myself, with my own labor and my own money, on the land which has belonged to my Dodem for hundreds of thousands of years.

Then the White Indian made a typical White racist remark, “Do you live in a tepee? ... What are you, a Traditionalist?”  A “Traditionalist,” as told by Chippewa Indians, is embodying the White man’s definition of what an Indian is supposed to be: Hollywood stereotypes, racist anthropology, and other vicious scapegoat-projections.  This abusive nonsense of the White man about what a “Real Indian” is supposed to be and do, comprises insults that I have heard many times.  About a month ago, I talked to a White woman who was working on the new edition of the League of Women Voters’ book, “Indians in Minnesota,” which on the surface seems to be a thoroughly researched and objective book, but the last edition of which promotes and re-creates the White man’s artificial Indians.  This woman’s latent racism came out when she saw that I use a computer to write this column.  She said, “I thought you Indians used tom-toms and smoke signals” to communicate.  Then, she said, “you should be saving the Indian culture, and teaching the young all about being Indian.”  I answered, “I’m not an Indian, and I am not about to promote your artificial, White Indian culture for you.  You White people have deliberately destroyed much of my Aboriginal culture, and killed most of my Dodem,” meaning my family.  The Indian culture curriculum taught in the schools is both institutional child abuse and a human rights violation.  I told the League woman that the schools should teach the children chemistry and math, and “better yet, teach them English” instead of Chippewa.  I am not going to stand by silently while anybody’s children are taught to self-destruct with Indian stereotypes and are programmed to be the White man’s scapegoat.  Examples of the racism which I have experienced my whole life include the name-calling, stereotyping and scapegoating which are a necessary part of the pseudo-male Euro-American English trade-language.

The Chip-away Indian caller also complained that I wore “white man’s glasses”—my glasses are not Indian Health Service glasses.  As far as I am concerned, the United States Government could leave my land tomorrow, and take the B.I.A. and all of their other Indian programs, and their Indians, with them.  I don’t benefit from the U.S. Government’s “Indian” programs.  I would joyfully give up my computer, and my glasses, and everything else that the White man has “invented” within his infrastructure based on my Peoples’ resources: to have my family that’s been killed, back again.  I would also gladly give up their English language, which is not my language and was violently forced onto me in “Indian” Boarding School.

I explained to the Wanna-Be Redby Indian that ninety percent of the so-called “Indians” are Indo-Europeans who have been turned into “Indians” and put on the Indian Rolls by the White man, and who maintain their fictitious Indian blood quantum at the pleasure of the White man—and I invited him to come look at his genealogy, and see for himself.  I also said to him that the Indian identity is an English term—it is not an Aboriginal term.  There is no word for “Indian” in the  Ahnishinahbæótjibway language.  I informed him that he had a White man’s identity, of “Indian.”  He hung up on me then.  Part of the artificial Indian identity is hating “white people,” and I suppose that he didn’t want to hear about how the White man trapped him with the Euro-Americans’ Indian identity.

INDIAN TREATIES:  The testimony at the Mille Lacs Treaty Trial has concluded, and the main question of who is going to regulate the six fish and the other few natural resources which remain after three centuries of plunder, awaits the decision of Judge Murphy.  The question of who will issue fishing licenses at Mille Lacs was not stressed in the media reports of the trial—but State Law, United States Law, and Indian Law are all Roman Law, and no matter what decision is handed down, the White man wins.

Irrelevant of the outcome of the Mille Lacs Case, “Me-Economics” [a social structure organized according to the White pseudo-male paradigm and enforced by violence: “hooray for me and F* you”] will prevail.  The Roman and British illegal systems which have been imported by the Euro-Americans to this Continent, in concert with the Indo-European languages, define and structure an abstract “reality” which is a closed system, and deny the existence of any other possible reality, especially the egalitarian and harmonious Aboriginal Indigenous ones.  Subject peoples of the “world powers” derived from the Roman Empire are imprisoned by their language and their culture so thoroughly that most of them do not even realize that anything exists beyond the very real walls of their linguistic, theological and metaphorical prisons.

Because the “Indian Treaties” were based on the White man’s mythology of Indians without eminent domain; and written in the Euro-American English language, under Roman and British laws, the outcome of these “Treaties” was predetermined before they were ever negotiated.  The dice were loaded, the deck was stacked, and all the Aces were up the Treaty Commissioner’s sleeve.  The bottom line of the Indian Treaties was to re-define the Aboriginal Indigenous people and to brainwash our children in compulsory-education schools.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:  There is no mention of women in the U.S. Constitution, and their President and Vice-President are explicitly referred to with male pronouns.  The Nineteenth Amendment did not literally give women the right to vote, although it mentions sex.  The U.S. Constitution, like other documents of Roman Law, was written in the pseudo-male language of English.  There is no female language in the U.S. Constitution, or in American English for that matter, which is why the Equal Rights Amendment failed.  It is also why, although women purportedly gained the “right to vote,” they are disproportionately represented in elective offices.  The Nineteenth Amendment did not re-apportion representation to accommodate the additional voters, and I don’t know what 51% of the electorate is voting for, since representation in the U.S. Congress is Constitutionally allocated to “male citizens 21 years of age.”

Although women are by implication invisible chattel—un-named and not recognized as human beings (like the Aboriginal Indigenous peoples) throughout the U.S. Constitution, “Indians” are mentioned both in the European colonists’ Declaration of Independence (as “merciless savages”), and three times in the U.S. Constitution: once as subject to U.S. commercial regulation, and twice as “Indians not taxed” explicitly excluded from U.S. representation and implicitly barred from holding land as Indians.  (So-called “Indian land” has been stolen from the Aboriginal Indigenous people, and the White man’s alien title is held by the United States Government, under “trust” for their mythological Indian wards.)  One of the reasons that the deliberate racist misnomer, “Indians,” is used so many times in the Constitution, was to cover the genocide that the European settlers had begun and were planning on continuing.  Many of the Euro-American immigrants had fled violence and/or ecological devastation in Europe, but because they did not understand their hierarchical languages and social structure objectively, their descendants have inevitably re-created the very conditions which made their ancestors migratory refugees from their home lands.

The United States Constitution begins, “WE the people of the United States, in order ... to secure the blessings ... to ourselves and our posterity, ... “  At the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the identity of “WE the people” was unambiguous—they meant White, Protestant, male property-holders.  In the past two hundred years, “WE the people” has become conveniently ambiguous.  The people who have been referred to as the Founding Fathers are said to have “fought for freedom” in the American Revolution, although by the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, their ardent desire for “liberty” had been distorted by greed and lust for power in European-language terms.  Article four, section 3, of the Constitution includes, “1. New States may be admitted by Congress ... but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State ... “  This is one place where the malignant social pathology of Manifest Destiny, stealing other peoples’ property, is written right into the U.S. Constitution, using ambiguities and euphemisms to explicitly lay out their plans for destroying Aboriginal Indigenous Peoples’ families and cultures, and stealing our land.

My telephone number is (218) 679-2382 and my mailing address is P.O. Box 484, Bemidji, MN 56601.

Wub-e-ke-niew


< HOME >
< INDEX >
< NEXT >