Reflections
from the Ahnishinahbæótjibway (We, the People)
|
On the twelfth of July,
the
Minneapolis Star Tribune had an article in the Metro section
reporting
the jury’s decision that the Native American Press/Ojibwe News
publisher
and staffwriter were “not guilty” of “defamation of character,” or
any of the
other charges filed by Noreen Beaulieu Smith.
Bill Lawrence was not name-calling, he and Gary Blair were
reporting the
news accurately; what they wrote was the truth—and, sooner or
later, the truth
always comes out.
SUE INDIANS: In
other news, the two Indians who got a
humiliating and dirty ride in the trunk of a squad car won their case
against
the City of Minneapolis, although the settlement awarded to them
by the court
was only a fraction of the damages that should have been paid—they’ve
been sold
out before, and they were ripped off again by their lawyer.
The
Minneapolis police were “not guilty” of violating the
Indians’ rights—it was the Minneapolis cops who did it.
The difference between the police and the
cops goes like this: when they wear their cap or helmet, they’re
policemen. But, when they don’t have a
cap on, they’re only cops. The cops are
the ones who put the people in the trunk of their car, not the police. What the cops did is also known as “trunk
and Indian,” and even cops should know that without a designated
driver,
“trunk” and “Indian” don’t mix.
There’s
a new movie out, “Indian in the Cupboard.” I’ve
never seen the movie, but I’ve been
wondering what strange characteristic it is about Western culture and
its
mythologies, that these people always want to stuff Indians in the
cupboard, or
in the trunk of a car, or any place else that’s out of sight and out of
mind.
After
the French and Indian Wars, the British stuffed the
defeated French Indians out of the way, in prisoner-of-war camps. Their heirs changed the name to “Indian
Reservations,” and stuffed the rest of the French Moors, the fur trade
half-breeds, the Indian Chiefs, and even the aboriginal people onto the
Reservations and into the invented identity of “Reservation Indians.” Re-naming things seems to be a European
trait (their Bible tells them to give everything names—so they’re great
at
name-calling). They can’t leave it
alone, and they’ve changed the names again, this time to “Indian
Nation;” and
to keep their “Native Americans” from contaminating the WASPs, they’ve
re-segregated them (after a phase of assimilation) and called them
“sovereign.”
The
immigrant Euro-Americans seem obsessed with
segregation—they segregate themselves in the suburbs, and segregate
their
minorities and ethnic groups in ghettos and in rural poverty (they
should call
this place the Un-united States). The
animals in a zoo are also segregated—but would they be a sovereign
nation? The people in the ghettos are
segregated and
isolated as thoroughly as Indians are on the Reservations—the way I see
it,
they’re set apart by matrilineal ancestry, so using the White man’s
crooked
linear logic, the “other America” must be sovereign too.
The people in prisons are also segregated
from society, so are they sovereign or is it just apartheid under
another
name? What exactly does this word
“sovereignty” really mean? It seems
like forked-tongue speaking, because making human beings into wards of
the
government under trusteeship is a human rights violation, but I don’t
see how this
kind of “sovereignty” or sivilization has any connection to that
claimed by the
United Nations, the Queen of England, or the Roman Empire (whose heirs
are
here).
MORE MYTHOLOGY: Burger
King, which sells ecologically
devastating fast-food hamburgers, has a new promotion scheme based on
the movie
Pocohantas. Have you seen the Indian
caricature on their french-fry packages—boy, is he ugly, and I mean
ugly! He’s even uglier than the
Ka-lai-jah, the
wooden Indian across the street from Paul Bunyan in Bemidji. Everybody’s getting into the
Disney-promotional tie-in scheme. The
rumor is that there is a new perfume coming out, also based on the
Pocohantas
mythology. It’s called “Beaver Tail,”
and it’s an irresistible lure which only attracts Squaw Men, especially
those
square-jawed Europeans who are tall, blonde and blue eyed.
It would have been more accurate to call
this new perfume “Genetic Engineering,” or maybe “Continental
Conquest”—because
the origin of Indians begins with a Squaw Man, and the Europeans
depended on
their Indians to steal this Continent.
The
mythologies of the Western European man and of his
Disneyland are interesting. I wonder
what would have happened if Ka-lai-jah or Chief Wahoo found
Cinderella’s glass
slipper? Would the South rise
again? Would anybody say anything if
Uncle Tom romanced Princess Pale Moon, or would Aunt Jemimah spend her
life as
a spinster? Would Disney, Inc. spend
millions of dollars making a buxom, glamorous and highly promoted movie
about
either story?
ORIGIN OF MAN: There are
many different myths and theories which different cultures have about
the
Origin of Man, and two of these theories are in the news again because
of the
prayer-in-school issue. (This is an
example of the Western hierarchies’ classical diversionary tactics, as
well as
being social engineering legislation no matter which side wins.) One of the most hotly debated
pseudo-controversies is Darwin and Spencer’s evolutionary theory of
“survival
of the fittest.” Darwin’s brainstorm
was inspired by sitting on an island with an intact ecology (which he
didn’t
see—he called it “wild”). This Galapagos
island had not yet been exploited by Western European man, although it
had been
inhabited by Aboriginal people since time immemorial.
What Darwin thought he saw was animals rapaciously devouring
other animals, but he did not understand that the predators were only
practicing ecological euthanasia by eating the weak and the sick who
would have
died anyway—they did not kill to extermination like the people of
Western
so-called Sivilization have done for millennia, shooting everything and
letting
it rot. The inhabitants of the
Galapagos Islands lived in balance and in harmony, but Darwin couldn’t
see it
because he was culturally crippled and a prisoner of his violent
language. Darwin should have pursued his
studies
farther, gone back to Western Europe and sat on one of the islands
there, and
then written about the consequences of “survival of the fittest” on
land which
had once had a balanced ecology like that he saw on the Galapagos
islands, but
had been plundered into a barren rock.
A POKE IN THE RIB: Western
European scientists’ theory of origin is the “Big Bang.”
The principal competing theory is that of
Adam and Eve. It looks like Adam
married his own rib—did he commit a sin, or was that was before sin was
invented? I don’t know what he said
when he introduced Eve at a social occasion, did he say “and here’s my
wife—my
rib” or did he say “this is my apple-polisher.” To
me, this Good Christian mythology features a role model of the
ultimate in incest, promoting a very effective way to create a gene
pool with
recessive and mutated genes. People who
claim “this is only a myth” should think about what their scientists
are doing
with the condors and the wolves and other “endangered species.” Instead of admitting that they destroyed
them, they’re following the Adam-and-Eve theory of origin, using a few
individuals to re-create an artificial, crippled species full of
recessive
mutations and other genetic defects, which has no chance of surviving
in a
demolished ecosystem and polluted watershed; in cities filled with
guns, drugs,
crime and violence; in suburban trophy-rooms; or in D.N.R. offices. They should face the consequences—they’ve
already forced them into extinction.
They can’t escape the destructive patterns in their English
language,
and the Westerners want to make this Continent into a wasteland like
old
Europe—if they’re so homesick for a trashed ecology, why don’t they
just move
back to Europe and leave this place alone.
My telephone number
is (218) 679-2382 and my mailing address is P.O. Box 484, Bemidji, MN
56601.
Wub-e-ke-niew
|
|
|