I remind readers that this discussion began with consideration of the pros or cons of the University of North Dakota (UND) accepting $100,000,000 from Ralph Engelstad, a Las Vegas casino owner and UND alumnus, for the building of a hockey arena under the condition that the "Fighting Sioux" nickname be retained for university teams. I know nothing of Mr. Englestad, but defending or criticizing him personally is irrelevant.

The important thing to note is that almost all of the discussion of matters at hand have been in moral (or ethical) terms by people who seemingly have very little knowledge of Indian history, culture, and the great world around them. A refrain has been that a plutocrat, with a personal (and "evil") agenda, is forcing a "clearly" morally questionable thing on the UND, and that the university, to be morally "pure," should refuse the money.

I do not deny at all that the core of the UND situation is money-- money AND power. Yet it should be understood that the same factors underlie the positons of the organized opposition to the gift, not just the positons of the donor. The donor at least, to judge only from "The Chronicle," has never hidden behind a facade of pure morality. The organized oppositon, however, not only has hidden in this way, but may well have knowingly sought to hide their real concerns behind their "pure" moral stance.

Having stated this, I turn to specific points:

1) Whether or not the American Indian Movement (AIM) is presently truly a movement concerned with "national liberation" in the usual sense of that term, there is much evidence that this was the case in AIM's early days. There would also seem to be little doubt, from AIM's present self-portrayals, that it seeks to foster the view that it is a "shadow government" for Native Americans, which will take the reigns when the restoration of absolute Indian sovereignty occurs. It has, for example, a "Ministry for Information," and a "Council on Security and Intelligence."

2) Russell Means (who has been very well known from the time of the Wounded Knee seige) and Ward Churchill, who has clearly claimed an important role in autonomous AIM, are the great "satans" of AIM. Churchill and AIM have hurled mutual denunciations. Among the charges, apparenly, both sides claim that the other side is infested with FBI agents who seek to destroy them and their movement.

3) It is not absolutely certain what led to the break between Russell Means and AIM. Among the reasons some have given was disagreement about the apparent infatuation of AIM with the Nicaraguan Sandanistas (with whom William Means, now one of the great critics of Russell) carried out some negotiations. But as, for example, Russell Means has taken roles in Hollywood films, and AIM has disparagingly referred to him as "the actor," it is safe to assume that many differences are involved.

Nevertheless, except for the different terms used in disparagement of the other side, the doctrines of Ward Churchill and AIM are really quite similar. Both use words and concept obfuscation for purely political ends. This is especially seen in their use of "cultural genocide" and "genocide" in treating American Indian policy. They have been very successful in this through the adoption of the terms by "socially aware" and "activist" historians of American Indians, who in some cases have tried to futher obfuscate terms.

4) Historian associated with Newberry Library have especially liked the term "Holocaust" as an equivolent for AIM's "genocide."-- as in Russell Thornton's use in treating American Indian population figures through time. The intent seems to be to obscure awareness that the overwhelming cause for the great loss of Indian life was from natural causes (the spread of diseases for which Indians had no natural immunity) rather than from warfare and outright murder. And here a note on "sensitivity" seems to be in order. "Holocaust," with its sacrificial associations for Jews, does not seem an appropriate term to several prominent Jewish scholars, even when speaking of the World War II genocides. Further, I would add, the term, as used by American Indian historian activists would seem to make the Jewish situation much less grim, in equating large scale Jewish exterminations with large loss of life through mostly natural causes.

5) One of AIM's main political projects has been to gain leverage against the United States government through one of its "units" or affliliated organizations (the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC)) recognized as an NGO by the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The claims to genocide against the U.S. government figure greatly in activist planning.

6) In the last few years, however, there have been notable impediments placed in the way of NGOs at the United Nations. The most marked has been the refusal of the UN to grant NGOs direct access to the UN General Assembly.

7) The major international forum for AIM (through IITC) is in "Indigenous Affairs" congresses. While, apparently, this seems promising to IITC, the long range outlook for such co-operation seem to be very limited, if for no other reason than the wide range of cultural diversity and economic levels of the various indigenous groups. Ultimately, it would seem, there must be a (likely very acrimonious) division of their interests.

8) In the meantime, several writers have concentrated on claims that the diverse indigenous religions are the same, at least in world view. These writers provide a stripped down version of "animism, " although never terming it that. They claim that this world view provides an ideological core on which to base a mutually beneficial political policy.

This is a very new cultural process, which can only be fully appreciated for what it is within the framework of my own theoretical work on social and prophetic movements. This cannot be discussed here, but it must be emphasized that this new process is of very great theoretical interest.

9) All the classic definitions of "religion" (but not all definitions) fail when applied to the body of existing data on past and present societies. In animism, all things in the world have a mysterious essence, or "power," or "mana." Hence, there is no conceptual distinction made in such societies between the supposedly universal "sacred" and "profane" recognized by Durkheim-- who claimed that religion is whatever is associated with "the sacred."

10) It is only within an animistic world view that claims of Indian activists about Indian religion can have any meaning. To a non-animist, a huge part of what American Indians might term "sacred" has no significance whatsoever from a religous standpoint.

Hence, look at some of the statements by Charlene Teters (high in the councils of another AIM affiliated organization, or unit, "National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media"). She became well known in 1988 from her oppositon to Chief Illiniwek at the University of Illinois. She has stated blanketly such things that for Indians, dances are sacred, that paint is sacred, and so on. Some Indian dances would be recognized, in their own terms, as very sacred by a non-animist. On the other hand, some dances are purely social, in the terms of non-animists. Many people, who are non-animists, however, unaware of the conceptual differences, simply take Indian statements and accept them in terms of the non-animist views of what "sacred" means. The extent of this is simply inconceivable to most. For example, one scholar has with pride published a letter saying that she withdrew her application for a University of Illinois positon on learning of the denigration of Indian religious leaders through the Chief Illiniwek figure. This view is massively uninformed.

Indeed, I would say, that in the long run, Indian efforts to obfuscate the difference between animistic concepts of sacred, and definitions in Federal statutes are going to be harmful to their quest for possession of sacred sites which are clearly within the use of sacred in Federal laws.

11) Americans have a great love for the principle of "Freedom of Religion," and this is the main point Indian activists have played upon. It is not much of a simplification to say that the core tactic of Indian activists is this: "Everything is sacred to us. Hence, we can claim everything, and get back all the land, and everything else we lost early on."

One of the points I have tried to make in discussions is that there is no absolute thing, even in the United States, called "Freedom of Religion." In cases involving present day Mormon (fundamentalist) prophets, Christian Scientists, and many, many other religions, not just American Indian religiions, vital state and social interests infringe upon the actual practices of doctrine.

12) In addition to the likely dead end of NGO activity at the international level, American Indian activists have been heavily concerned with legal matters domestically. The "point" organization for the latter has been Susan Shown Harjo's Washington, D.C., based Morningstar Institute.

There is an notable active connection of AIM leaders with the Morning Star institute. Further, there is at least one Web document from Ms. Harjo (on institute stationary) where she provided seemingly derogatory information on Mr. Churchill. ("Note for Paul Demain," from Susan Shown Harjo, stamped [recipient?] " Indian Country.Comm. Fax NC 17158343243.")

13) Ms. Harjo's Morning Star Institute has concentrated in legal issues of one area-- the American Indian cultural heritage. These are matters which have great import for scholarship on American Indian history (including archaeology). Apparently the thrust is to build up a body of law and precedents asserting absolute Indian control of all things connected with that heritage.

In 1992 a case was brought up to the Office of Patents and Trademarks about the Washington Redskin's trademark. (One of those listed as bringing suit was AIM's William Means (big in IITC, and on the board of the indigenous activist World Archaeological Congress). In 1999, having used, apparently, Fred Hoxie as its lead expert witness, the ruling was made that the Redskins would be stripped of their registration of this trademark. (This does not mean that the trademark cannot be used, but only that it lacks the protection afforded by registration-- in other words, it can be infringed without much recourse to law.) The matter was then taken to U.S. District Court, D.C. (Pro-Football vs. Harjo 12/11/00). Thus far only the non-constitutional matters have been ruled on, while constitutional issues remain to be decided.

14) The core of the original case is the statement that trademarks may not be "disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous, or disrespectful." The ruling which was made was only that the name "Redskins" (and some related names) MAY be disparaging. Legal commentators have noted that the Office of Patents and Trademarks, by this ruling, have shifted the definition of what is "disparaging" from one of "intent" of the speaker, to the "perception" of the hearer.

This is an extremely important matter, for virtually any term can be perceived by someone as disparaging. Some would even go so far as to draw a parallel between this shift, and (an unrealized) shifting of prosecutor practices. Presently, of course, a prosecutor must prove guilt, rather than the accused having to prove innocence. There is no rule as to how one can establish whether or not a term, as perceived by a listener, can be shown to be disparaging. Entered into evidence were unscientific telephone polls, apparently conducted for the Harjo side, which showed that a rather large majority of people surveyed did not find the name "Redskins" disparaging. Hence, it is not clear how large the minority must be which finds something disparaging before a name can be deregistered. The order for the removal of the trademark registration (a long process) in fact came about because the finding was only that the trademark MIGHT be disparaging.

In other words, questionable scholarship, once again is arrayed against the likely will of a majority of "the people."

15) The question thus arises. Is the Redskin case of the nelightened "sensitive" against a majority of "insensitive" people. Possibly. But I think the case of the Indian Motorcycle trademark is of interest in this regard.

Until 1953, when production halted, the Indian Motorcycle (here IM) was a famous trademark. There were numerous receiverships connected with the IM estate, and these were consolidated into a Federal receivership in 1995. The judge involved with the receivership question the receiver as to the applicability of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 to the case. This law, with carefully defined terms, specifies that Indian Arts and Crafts can only be marketed as Indian if they are produced by individuals who are enrolled members of a Federally recognized tribe. (In essence, this is no more than a truth in advertising law.)

But, thereupon, the receiver approached the Cow Creek band of Umpqua Indians. What, exactly, happened thereafter is not absolutely certain, beyond the agreement that there would be some Cow Creek involvement. It was apparently agreed, however, that the Cow Creeks would benefit from licensing fees from the revived manufacture of the motorcycles, and that addition fees would go to various national American Indian organizations. The agreement was repudiated by the company, perhaps seeing that the Indian Arts and Crafts Act had no connection with their own situation, and hence that license fees were unnecessary. About a year ago, the Cow Creeks went back to court, arguing that since the Indian Motorcycle was advertised as being hand-built and hand-painted, the Indian Arts Crafts Act was directly involved with the matter of license fees.

16) There is another point closely connected with this. AIM has spent a good deal of time picketing and denoucing "New age shamanism," "inaccurate movie portrayals of Indians," people who play Indians, and so on. Indeed, one of the reasons, perhaps, that AIM has specifically targeted Russell Means is his career as an actor in Hollywood films. His case shows, that not all Indian activists share the AIM viewpoint.

So what is going on here? It seems rather evident to me that the issue of the mascot is not basically about morality and ethics. Rather, the issue is about whether or not Indians can claim money as fees for licensing even those aspects of their tradition which have enterened into a much wider cultural context (as Asiatic Indian "pajamas" is now a concept widely connected with many non-Asian cultures now). Were the issue merely one of morals and ethics, there could of course, be no money coming in. Above all, I think, this is what the Indian Motorcycle case shows.

Thus my conclusion (based on a number of other matters, which need no further discussion, unless, of course, I am challenged). The internal logic of the AIM demands seem to require the abolishment or censorship of all works of art, and cultural representations of Indians with which AIM does not agree-- or the collection of a license fee for non-interference. Films, books, even the Boy Scout honor society, the Order of the Arrow, would all have to have Indian (perhaps read AIM) involvement. This is why I say, once it is fully realized that the moral argument in regard to mascots and other issues may well be a facade for a particualr agenda (involving money to Indians) the bit of moral highground which Indian activists claim will be lost to them to public belief. Rather, I think, instead of the claims to cultural patrimony being steps toward structural change in American society, most Indian activists seem intent on ultimate self destruction. On the other hand, there are Indian activists who do actually believe that Indian lands will be restored, through the destruction of the "White Man," and for these, the social unrest that activists have been contributing to, is, in fact, a step forward in their policy.

-- Melburn D. Thurman, (posted 5/21, 2:00 p.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.