Reflections from the Ah­nish­i­nah­bæójib­way (We, the People)

April 15, 1994

Amendments to the Indian Freedom of Religion Act are currently under consideration by the United States Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, in the U.S. Legislative Branch.  In the Executive Branch, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is putting a lot of lobbying pressure into passing this unique piece of legislation in a form under which protection of the practice of Indian Religion will be granted only to Federally Recognized Indians.  So-called “Indian Religion” is an Indo-European hierarchical cult based on Christianity.  Using apartheid legislation (euphemistically referred to as “protection”) to abrogate Constitutional provisions of Civil Rights for Indians, and limiting the practice of so-called “Indian Religion” to Federally-defined “Indians,” entrenches the U.S.’ control over the Indians they created, and draws public attention away from the Aboriginal Indigenous people and religions—over whom the U.S.A. has absolutely no defensible jurisdiction.

Real Chippewa Indians are always pestering me, either asking me some irrelevant detail about how to be an Indian, or telling me how to be a proper, Real Indian.  I am Ahnishinahbæótjibway.  I am not an Indian.  I don’t care about how to be an Indian, and I don’t want to be insulted by being mis-categorized as an Indian.  (If Wanna-Be Indians have questions about how to be a Real, Federally Recognized Indian, go ask the White men who created the Indians, and who are the self-appointed definers of Indians—and, it’s a venerable American political tradition, the God-given right of the W.A.S.P.’s to make sport of such hapless Indians.)  So-called “Indians,” and the Ahnishinahbæótjibway, are two entirely different groups of people.

Indians are, by their acceptance of definition as “Indians,” citizens of the United States, so the question arises as to why the ordinary Constitutional guarantees purporting “freedom of religion” to all U.S. citizens do not provide freedom of religion for Indians.  Even the often-cited issue of sacramental use of peyote by Indian subject people has legal precedent in the White Christian mainstream.  During Prohibition, the U.S. Constitution banned “beverage” alcohol.  There was no religious-use exception made in the 18th Amendment.  This was circumvented by tacit in-house agreement: sacramental wine was produced by licensed wineries, for sale to approved religions.  Why not license “Indian Medicine Men” and other Indo-European Shamans, under this precedent?  (The Branch Davidians were licensed Christians.)  That established, presumably legal, precedent is not being used, means that the issue is something other than the surface explanation.  Could it be that, under the joint provisions of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, “Indians” are categorized by the founding documents of the United States Government as P.O.W.’s, occupied peoples defined as enemies of the State, inherently without rights or representation? ... and, that these subject Indo-European peoples, the Indians, are in complicity with the White Euro-Americans in masking the centuries of genocide of the Aboriginal Indigenous people.

The vast majority of the people who are Federally Recognized as “Indians” by the United States Government, have European patrilines (and many have nearly pure Indo-European and African ancestry).  Most of the Federally Recognized Indians have little or no connection to the Aboriginal Indigenous Peoples of this Continent (which is why Gerald Torres, counsel to the U.S. Attorney General’s Office, claims that Indians are not “classified as a racial group.”)  Almost all Indians are European subject peoples.  As I was growing up in the Boarding Schools, we were told quite forcibly that “Indians are the Vanishing Americans” and that “Indians must assimilate.”  It’s not clear what the White man wants his Indians to assimilate into, and the U.S. Congress keeps legislating roadblocks to keep the “tainted-blood” Indians out of the White mainstream.  The present U.S. Indian policy entrenches an apartheid system, socially engineering pseudo-ethnic “minorities” out of ordinary White Trash and a few Métis.  Although the United States Supreme Court determined, nearly forty years ago, that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional for Euro-African Americans who are not categorized as Indians, the U.S. is continuing to elaborate their institutional structure of “separate and less than equal” for those people classified as Federally Recognized Indians.

If the U.S. Indian policy was really assimilation, why would Indians need: a separate and inferior Civil Rights Bill (which does not provide actual civil rights); a separate health-care system which promotes diabetes and creates the lowest life-expectancy in the United States; and a separate governmental system which is so corrupt it can only be described as “unique.”  This medieval legacy of French fur-trade feudalism is entrenched by U.S. Government funding of what the U.S. Congress privately calls “Federal Instrumentalities,” labelled in NewSpeak as “Indian Self-Determination.”  Why has the United States created a White puppet government, patterned after the worst of the European-style governments, and claimed that the White Indians who they have empowered in this “Indian Tribal Government” are “Sovereign,” meaning “separate under apartheid.”  Indians are not Aboriginal Indigenous People, and Indians have no concept and no inkling of what We the People, our Dodem values and our traditional Midé religious philosophy, are about.  The Euro-American “Indian” structures and mythologies have absolutely nothing to do with the Ahnishinahbæótjibway.

In researching this column, I telephoned every major Washington agency involved in the amendments to the Indian Freedom of Religion Act, from the White House to the Justice Department, trying to get some sensible explanation about the U.S. policy reflected in this legislation.  There are not any “Honest Injuns” in Washington, D.C., although I was told some Lily-White lies.  The most enlightening response I heard was “no comment.”  Since the dedicated public servants I talked to did not want to be quoted (and some refused to tell me their names), something must be even more rotten than usual in D.C.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has deleted some sports-team designations, including “Redskins,” “Chiefs” and “Indians,” from their sports pages.  They have apparently decided that these terms are potentially offensive, and will refrain from using them until the politically-correct climate shifts again.  If these words can no longer be printed in the paper, I don’t know how—or if—the newspaper will report on White Indian militants’ protests of sports mascots, or the Real Indians’ demonstrations against the use of the term “Washington Redskins,” etc.  It’s a strange kind of abstract wishful thinking, where not writing a word can solve a problem.  The caricature “Indian mascots” will still parade around at half-time, reflecting Western European Civilization’s foolish racist heritage, whether or not the Star Tribune writes about them.  After all, one of the main purposes of sporting events is to make “Big Bucks.”  How are the Federally Recognized Cherokees going to get their “Indian Bucks” for Bingo and Gambling, if they can no longer manufacture Tomahawks for the Redskin fans?

The State of Minnesota Legislative House passed a bill to ban Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, and any other alcohol named after Indians or Wanna-Be’s.  If Heileman Brewery wants to sell booze so badly, why don’t they make a beer called Custer’s Malt Liquor?  The Brewery could even build a bar, and call it the “Little Big Horn Corral.”  If they put it across the river in Wisconsin, they could sell Crazy Horse Malt along with Custer’s.  Heileman’s could promote a new cocktail, mixing the two Malt Liquors, and instead of having a “Happy Hour,” they could have a “Treaty Hour.”  The toast could be “as long as the grass shall grow and the rivers shall flow—drink to broken promises,” and everybody could get “wiped out.”  The last one standing gets a prize: an arrow shirt; and the first one “out” gets a Tomahawk Chop and a one-way ticket to the ethnically appropriate Detox.

Linguistic cleansing has not been limited to Minnesota.  According to Boston syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, the élite arbiters of culture are seeking language purity.  The French are exorcising English impurities, and the American W.A.S.P.’s are in quest of their Germanic roots, eliminating one French “loan-word” after another.  The latest is that the White House (French) “Chef” has been replaced by another European food-handler, who Ms. Goodman calls “Le Cook.”

Speaking of gourmet cooking, a friend of mine was telling me about his grandson’s favorite sandwich.  The recipe goes like this: spread a layer of potato chips on a slice of bread.  Then, add a slice of baloney, a second layer of potato chips, another slice of baloney, and then a third layer of potato chips.  Finally, top it off with a slice of bread.  This is the recipe I was given for the sandwich.  When I first heard about it, I said “yuck.”  But, curiosity got the best of me, so I bought bread, potato chips and baloney, and made one of these renowned but unnamed sandwiches.  I was hungry from working all day in the sugarbush, so I don’t know if it just seemed like it tasted good, or is it terrible nutrition, masquerading as a delicious sandwich?

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


< HOME >
< NEXT >