But as there still remain some people who will not let go of the mascot issue, I will suggest one point (of a number of matters I could bring up) which must be considered by anyone who seeks to understand the controversy -- and what is implies. Further, so there can be no doubts, I must add that it was my hope that Indian activists would be forewarned by my suggestions, and basically change their strategies, without further comments from me.

Indian activists are heavily engaged with the concept of "national sovereignty" of Native American people. Socially activist scholars, seemingly believing they are fighting for moral imperatives, have encouraged this usage, and often adopted it themselves -- speaking, in the archaic terms of the 18th century, of this or that Indian Nation.

But when someone, such as Laura Nader, criticizes the U.S. government for dumping radioactive wastes on Indian land, much of the relevant history is usually left out of the criticism. This "dumping" is only possible because of the continued application of at least some Indian "sovereignty" claims, and the willingness of Indians (for great financial benefits) to accept that material.

It is this "national" land base of the various American Indian groups which differentiates (many of) them (but not all) from other American minority groups, and which likely is the main factor in keeping them from joining with other minorities which, if unified, could have considerable political influence on policies of the United States.

Note well, my statements are in no way to be constructed as arguments for expropriation of the Indian land base. But the issue of "national sovereignty" of American Indian groups needs rethinking.

Those who have any doubts should closely consider the case of the Skull Valley Shoshones, who agreed to use their reservation (populated only by a few dozen people) for temporary above ground storage of nuclear fuel waste -- indeed, the area is capable of storing all present American wastes of this kind.

The governor of Utah is of the opinion that even transportation of wastes to the site poses a clear danger to the two million inhabitants of the state, and has said that the facility will be developed only over his dead body.

Are the interests of a very small group of people inherently more important that the interests of the people of Utah (and adjacent regions) and, likely, of the people of the Untied States as a whole?

-- Melburn D. Thurman (posted 10/5, 10:20 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous 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.