Being Indigenous

Perspectives on Activism, Culture, Language and Identity

Neyooxet Greymorning

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781138314917
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429846717
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This volume gives voice to an impressive range of Indigenous authors who share their knowledge and perspectives on issues that pertain to activism, culture, language and identity – the fabric of being Indigenous. The contributions highlight the experiences of Indigenous peoples from a variety of countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Greenland, Norway and Russia. The book provides valuable historical and political insight into the lingering impact of colonization, considering the issues faced by Indigenous peoples today and reflecting on the ability of their cultures, languages and identities to survive in the twenty-first century.

PART I

Telling ‘his-stories’

Three Indigenous perspectives

1

EXAMINING A POLITICAL REALITY OF LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

Neyooxet Greymorning

Introduction

For over 200 years governments in North America have enforced policies aimed at assimilating and politically dominating Indigenous North American peoples. This chapter discusses several of the political tools used throughout history by colonial powers in North America as a means of highlighting the role that language must play in maintaining Indigenous peoples’ distinct cultural identity against a long and continuing history of political subjugation.

In the wake of over 100 years of political and cultural suppression, Indigenous North American cultures and resources continue to come under assault, as witnessed during the eight-month siege at Standing Rock over the North Dakota Access Pipeline. An underlying focus of this chapter is to examine how language and identity may represent the last significant political reality to anchor Native cultures against a history of government policies and practices that continue efforts toward assimilating Native peoples into the ideological collective of the governing settler-state. Before moving into such a discussion, however, the chapter will briefly examine the legal and political subjugation Indigenous North Americans have experienced by framing an initial discussion of contact and conquest within the genre of a ‘Trickster’ tale. My decision to craft a trickster motif to begin this chapter rests upon its widespread use within many Native American cultures. Traditionally, Trickster tales have been used to illustrate improper behavior in such a way that they served to teach what members within Native communities viewed as proper behavior. Among many Native American groups, Trickster is always getting into some type of mischief or stirring up trouble. If Trickster discovers a skill or the property of another he always wants to claim it for himself. Whenever Trickster sees something that he likes he is sure to conjure up some trick in order to obtain what he desires as his own because he always tends to see himself as better than those around him. Among the Arapaho, Trickster tales underwent a transformation and became Nih’oo3oo (Whiteman) tales at some point between the latter part of the 1700s and the early part of the 1800s. So, in effect, Trickster/Nih’oo3oo works well within the context of this chapter. There is one other reason for utilizing a Nih’oo3oo motif. History as recorded by those who colonize is almost always told from a different perspective than the history recounted by those who have been colonized. Hence, within the traditions of the Arapaho, a Nih’oo3oo tale serves both to represent an Indigenous perspective within the tale itself and to cue the reader that an underlying interpretation and analysis has been set within the framework of an Indigenous perspective throughout the presentation of this chapter. Through the use of a Nih’oo3oo motif the beginning section of this chapter will aspire to open up a small window for the reader to get a glimpse at another culture’s ‘emic’ or Native perspective, with regard to why it is necessary to keep Trickster at bay. To this end, the chapter seeks to bring a level of understanding to the role that language ultimately should play in keeping Native American culture from being totally subjugated and absorbed by a dominating culture that, in the name of development and progress, would seek to exploit all within the reach of its ‘Midas’ touch.

When Nih’oo3oo found his way to Turtle Island

Teecxo’ tih Nih’oo3oo koun nih’iine’etit teesihi biito’oowuu’ hiniisonooninoo, hee’ihheenebinoo’oo noh he’ihbeetnotiitii wonooyoo biito’oowuu’ . . .

Long ago when Nih’oo3oo only lived on the land of his fathers, it is said he was restless and wanted to explore beyond the limits of his world. It had come to his attention that there existed a land known as Turtle Island far beyond the great waters and he became desirous to discover what he could gain from this new land. When Nih’oo3oo finally made it to Turtle Island he found it to be very different from his own homeland. Nih’oo3oo thought the climate harsh and unsuitable, and viewed the mannerisms and lifestyles of the land’s inhabitants to be crude and inferior to his own. Similarly, the people of Turtle Island found the mannerisms of Nih’oo3oo to be shocking and worth their ridicule. And so it was that each viewed the other through the worldview perspective of their own culture’s values.

Although Nih’oo3oo had always viewed himself as a clever fellow, when he first arrived he knew nothing of the land, the people or the environment that he had entered. As a result, he found himself relying upon the land’s Indigenous peoples in order to learn what resources could be harvested for food, clothing and profit. Nih’oo3oo wanted to make a home for himself and his people in this land, so being a clever fellow he brought seeds from his homeland to plant. But his crops, like his efforts, withered in an environment in which both he and his crops were foreign. For more than a century (1497–1602), though many others from different Nih’oo3oo clans tried to create a piece of their world within the new land, none were able to make a lasting impact upon the Indigenous cultures or land that in time others would come to know as North America.

Now the wants of Nih’oo3oo have always been great, and he remained determined to learn the ways of the people in order to gain a strong hold upon the land. Finally, around 1603, members of a particular Nih’oo3oo clan established a small settlement in the northeastern region of the land at a place they would call Canada. Only a few years after this, members of another Nih’oo3oo clan began a colony at a place they called Roanoke. Now the clans of these Nih’oo3ouu were so entrenched in their own particular ways that they viewed all other people and cultures as inferior to their own. Driven by their own ethnocentrisms, the two clans battled until one defeated the other (1759) and the winner claimed dominion over the land and its people. The Nih’oo3oo wars, however, were far from being finished. The rules that gave order to their society began to break down. Conflict and turmoil increased and eventually culminated in the Great Nih’oo3oo uprising (in 1776). When the dust finally settled, the land had been divided between the two clans, America in the south and Canada in the north, and as a result of these people’s lack of forbearance the world of Turtle Island’s Indigenous Peoples would forever be changed.

How the course of history was shaped by Nih’oo3oo

Historically, the focus of many of the changes enforced upon the people indigenous to North America has been to try to shape the cultures of Indigenous peoples into a cultural image of Nih’oo3ouu. This is most commonly referred to as assimilation. Early on it was realized, much to the disappointment of Nih’oo3oo government officials, that efforts to bring about assimilation were not having the results they had hoped for. Instead of becoming assimilated, a number of Indigenous groups adapted elements of Nih’oo3oo culture to fit the framework of their own particular cultures, and demonstrated advancements that at times successfully competed against the intruders. When this occurred, political leaders in both Canada and the United States turned to implementing legislation to bring about the desired results. When legislation did not always achieve the results sought after, the courts became the next battleground. Using the twin forces of legislation and the courts, governments in both Canada and the United States had acquired the necessary tools to politically subjugate Indigenous North America. Support for this claim will be accompanied by a closer look at the tools and strategies historically utilized by American, British and Canadian governments to claim an absolute dominion over the peoples and lands of Indigenous North America.

In 1759, after a French defeat in an area near Quebec referred to as the ‘Plains of Abraham’, the British remained concerned about the threat of continued Indian military activity. In an attempt to quell such threats, the British issued a series of proclamations as a measure to control its own citizens.¹ The most familiar of these is the Royal Proclamation of 1763.² This document explicitly stated that the peace and security of Britain’s North American colonies and plantations greatly depended upon the goodwill of and alliance with the several Indian Nations bordering the colonies. While this document has found its way into Canadian litigation, both to support and argue against the existence of Indigenous peoples’ rights, most believed that this document represented the political ability of Britain to bring North America under its laws and government. When the Proclamation is placed within the context of certain events and conditions that existed during the period, however, a very different impression emerges.

A momentous event, which should not be overlooked when considering a potential cause and effect relationship relevant to the final drafting of the Proclamation, occurred in the spring of 1763. During the months of May and June, warfare erupted along the frontier and a fighting force of Indigenous people, under the leadership of an Ottawa chief known as Pontiac, captured nine of eleven British forts. With the exception of Forts Ligoner and Pitt, the Indigenous nations of the Western Confederacy were largely successful in regaining control over their traditional lands in the upper Great Lakes region. From May until October, warriors of the Western Confederacy maintained an effective military posture. By the fall of 1763, Indigenous nations of the Confederacy had either captured or destroyed every post west of Detroit. It was not the superiority of the British military, however, that eventually contained the Indigenous war effort, but the spread of a smallpox epidemic that finally enabled Superintendent of Indian Affairs Sir William Johnson to arrange a truce. It is worth mentioning that some believe this epidemic to have possibly resulted from the deliberate distribution of infected ‘dress’ goods such as handkerchiefs, various items of clothing and blankets from the smallpox hospital at Fort Pitt. Sharon O’Brien (1993), for example, supported this idea when she noted William Trent’s description of a ‘gift’ to the Delaware, in 1763: ‘Out of regard to them [the Indians] we gave them two blankets and an (sic) Handkerchief (sic) out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect’ (p.47). Historically Pontiac’s resistance is given little to no credit as having any significant impact upon the final drafting of the Royal Proclamation of October 17, 1763 (King George III, 1763). This oversight is a good example of how ethnocentrism has colored the writing of history to strengthen and perpetuate a myth of Nih’oo3oo superiority during that period of European colonization.³

After the United States was born as a nation, America’s leadership began to recognize the sovereignty and rights of various nations of Indigenous peoples through treaties. This early recognition, however, was soon followed by the United States government exercising its own brand of colonial control. In 1789, under Section 8 of the Constitution, the newly formed government claimed itself to possess certain powers; specifically, its ability ‘to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes’ (see Chandler et al., 1987, p.679). This clause has been interpreted as giving the United States government broad powers to regulate and manage all affairs related to Indigenous North Americans. It must be noted that, even though the words ‘Indian Tribes’ appear on the same line as ‘foreign Nations’, logic fails to explain the fact that, while this clause could not endow the United States with any specific power to manage the affairs of foreign nations, it nevertheless is claimed to have endowed the American government with explicit powers to manage the affairs of Indigenous nations that, like foreign nations, had not been incorporated into the American state. Furthermore, at the time the Constitution was adopted, the notion of managing the internal affairs of Indigenous populations was contradictory to the very spirit of the several treaties the United States had already entered into with Indigenous nations. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by Congress between 1790 and 1834 that set the boundaries of Native American reservations and regulated commerce between Americans and Native Americans. The claimed intent of these statutes was to protect Indian people from the practices of unscrupulous whites (see Prucha, 1962), which resulted in Congress granting the federal government legal power to manage the affairs of Indians. The traditional territories, properties, rights and liberties of Indigenous people from sea to sea, without their knowledge or consent, were thus subsumed as the exclusive responsibility of the United States government.

Governments in both Canada and the United States have worked to create an inaccurate and myth-like image of the political subjugation they sought to exert over Indigenous North Americans. In the United States an early tool of this illusion was promulgated in 1831, with the case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall claimed that the Indians were in a state of pupilage, a claim that has been used since that time to undermine any actual realization of self-determination for Indigenous Nations.⁴ Marshall’s discourse was based on his principle of ‘discovery’ (see Greymorning, 2017). He also stated, when defining the political status of the Cherokee, that although they could not be considered foreign nations, ‘they may, more correctly, perhaps, be identified as domestic dependent nations’.⁵ In Canada, the government at times utilized the concept of a state of tutelage as a means to an end, which was to redefine Indigenous Canadians as non-Indians. This was accomplished through legislation asserting that once ‘Status’ Indians attained a certain level of education they attained citizenship.⁶ The Catch 22 was that once they had become citizens of Canada, they were no longer considered to be Indians. They summarily received notice of citizenship and by virtue of such notice all treaty benefits were abrogated. Though much different from the United States government in its approach and perspective, the end result was the same; an Act created by an alien culture arbitrarily defining who and what is Indian, for the purpose of disempowering and controlling the lives and resources of Indigenous North Americans. In spite of the controlling force of Canadian and American governments, it is significant that well into the late 1800s there still existed areas in North America that had been occupied exclusively by Indigenous peoples for thousands of years. Counter to this fact, however, governments have taken the stance that land and resources can be taken from First Nations peoples by simply enacting legislation to accomplish this end. It is for this reason, in part, that Indigenous peoples have undertaken efforts to empower themselves through the political mediums of self-government and self-determination. Unfortunately, language has not historically been given any significant position within these efforts.

In the 1831 Supreme Court Case, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Cherokee initiated one of the first Indigenous efforts aimed at self-empowerment.⁷ The immediate issues and circumstances surrounding this case stemmed from Georgia’s passing of a series of Acts intended to annex Cherokee land to several counties within the state and coerce the Cherokee into emigrating from Georgia. Georgia’s governor, George Gilmer, was responsible for passing these Acts, which sought to give Georgia’s government the last word in regulating all laws regarding Indians within the boundaries of the state. The legislation asserted Georgia’s right of title to Cherokee lands, made null and void all Indian customs an...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Map
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I Telling ‘His-Stories’: Three Indigenous Perspectives
• Part II Perspectives on Cultural Ways of Being Indigenous
• Part III Perspectives on Colonization and Identity
• Part IV Perspectives on Activism and Philosophy
• Part V Perspectives on Language and Cultural Survival
• Index