In the comments there are frequent references to ostensible "moral abdications" on the part of one group or another. If there is real "moral abdication" in the issue of team mascot names, it would seem to me that it is in the failure of people of the sort specified to enter into debates of national significance -- far beyond the phrasing of the Chronicle's question. I do not mean by this that such people should take the role of advocate. (There is still much which could be learned by the contemplative person from Benda's now ancient book, The Treason of the Intellectuals.) Rather, if it is possible to provide citizens with reasoned assessments of the situation in which all now find themselves, it is people such as those noted who can say: "Look, here is what the situation may or could be, and this is how the very minor problem of sports mascots likely, or may, fit into the massive changes taking place in the world now."

These problems are conceptually very intractable, and very daunting. No one can say with any certainty where the problems or the solutions will actually lead. It is certain, however, that the finest minds we now have should be engaged in a great national debate, for the issues (which some colloquia discussants implicitly recognized as involving such things as the nature of free speech, property rights, and so on) have the most profound implications for the government of all nations, and social structuring with these national states.

As it is dubious at best that any of those who have followed the colloquium would have the slightest interest in how I personally see the vast changes, I shall not impose on them by even attempting to sketch these views. Instead, I point to the lack of response by those who might do a good job with what needs to be done. All I will insist on here is that the question as phrased by the "Chronicle" contributes to the "dumbing down" of debate. This should neither be taken as aspersions on the capability of the people who have commented, not as the questioning of their commitments (which I praise -- whether pro or con on the specific issue). Indeed, there are a number of other points they raise which I do not want to seem to criticize. Hence, having noted that the "parameters" of the discussion are much too narrow, I make only a few comments which are directed specifically to the issue at hand. These are from someone who not only had wide and deep experience in Indian matters, but one who can demonstrate some Indian ancestry. (Further, I note, I use "Indian" and "Native American" interchangeably, because my friends amongst the various peoples often prefer one specific usage over the other.)

Contrary to what respondents seem to believe, the practice of Indian religion is hardly "free," even now. Peyotist, belonging to the Native American Church still suffer personal harm from practicing their religious beliefs.

On the other hand, because so few in the "outside world" have much understanding of Indian affairs and history, a class of "professional Indian" has thrived. These people make the most profoundly ignorant statements on historic Native American cultures, largely, it would seem, to attain specific political ends. These are seen most notably on national educational television, where unchallenged statements are made, such as: "My people never tortured anyone."

If people wish to claim ownership of a particular cultural tradition, "warts and all" would likely be a good thing. The bashing of captive infant's heads on trees was a much a part of some Indian traditions as the beautiful mythological-religious tradition, in the same way that a "Germanic Tradition" must include Auschwitz as well as Beethoven. In claiming "ownership" of a cultural tradition, does the world as whole lose at least some of a claim apart from this? Can the "owners" be trusted to continue to emphasize death camps as well at the Fifth Symphony?

There is an almost amazing diversity in the situations of the different Native American groups. Not all, in fact, experience great economic deprivation, although the larger number do. But the "average American," I think, would be greatly educated by even cursory first hand acquaintance with Pine Ridge, especially if they had a few decades of experience in the area. (The situation should be known to all Americans -- it is ghastly.) Hence, it is a much telling point when one of the "pro-mascot" discussants said something like: "I don't see a great exodus from the University of North Dakota to help people on the reservations." Might it not be that the moral certitude of people on such a clearly peripheral issue as that of the mascots alleviates any feeling of their inadequacy in coming to real terms with truly crucial questions about Indian social and economic equality?

Yet there can be little to praise in the strategies of most Indian activists. I have already published a bit on this, suggesting that activists have themselves concentrated on truly meaningless issues, such as burial "repatriations" which include claims far beyond any where reasonable cultural affiliation can be demonstrated. I have suggested that the elders consider one point, apparently beyond the ken of activists. Suppose that the people who have real power in this country care neither for particular cultural traditions, nor the real social and economic equality of all citizens. Certainly, they have no real care for scholarship. Then the longer battles are fought on peripheral issues, the longer it will take the activists to discover that they have achieved nothing of real substance.

There is much more which should be discussed. Quite clearly, for example, most discussants have no knowledge at all of the role of stereotyping in culture. Their perspectives might be quite different had they read Keith Basso's study of "the White Man" in Apache culture. Further, more should be said of the role of multi-national corporations, and how emphasis on "diversity" is greatly to their benefit. But part of the reason behind this should be evident to all who truly read the Chronicle, in the important recent article, for instance, showing that "affirmative action" is basically now a benefit to immigrants, not blacks or Native Americans. The longer the probabilities are ignored, the further and further American Indians will fall behind as the new world takes shape.

-- Melburn D. Thurman (posted 2/26, 9:40 a.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.