News Concerning the Class

I know the deadline is passed for blogging for this class, but I wanted people to read this. Campbell Brown is on CNN, and there are a number of things wrong with this article.

To start with, the law Brown mentions was created because children were being forcibly removed from their homes by the government up until that point. They were in danger of "losing" them, but instead their children were being stolen. There is a huge difference in this reality, which Brown fails to mention.

Also, Brown keeps mentioning the fact that the boy is "only" a certain part Native American. As if the technical amount of percentage he is Native American makes his identity null and void.

This article just bothered me a lot, in so many ways, and I wanted others (who might still be on this blog, though I wouldn't be surprised if people were too busy with their other finals) to check it out and tell me what they thought. Does anybody else see this as incredibly ethnocentric on Brown's part, or is it just me? Good luck on the rest of your finals everybody!

No Parole Today

I presented on the book "No Parole Today" by Laura Tohe in class, with class discussion and a little workshop. I wrote the term "boarding school" up on the board and had the class tell me what words they associated with that, which I wrote on the whiteboard. The words were things like "uniforms, rules, religion, scary old men/women, away from family, privilege," etc. Then I wrote "prison" up on the board, and we did the same thing. One thing that we noticed was that there were quite a few similarities between the two, not the least of which were things like forced separation from family and friends, and no choice about whether they were there or not. 

I did this exercise to show what a misnomer the term 'boarding school' was in relation to what native children across the continent had to go through. It makes one think that it was a privileged thing to be at the school, just because of the name. This is an example of how we should take words with a grain of salt when it comes to the Native communities, as it is often untrue. The process of "unlearning" what we "know" about Native Americans is tricky, and it means looking behind words into reality so as not to be deceived by the falsities of the colonizing viewpoints. 

Final Project - Queen Lili'uokalani

Abstract:

 I will be looking at the life of Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawaii, and how it intersected with United States imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism and corporatism. I will examine her life and the role she played in history in both critical and open-minded ways, using historical documents and any feminist/race theory texts available on the subject. Also, I hope to connect her life with the corporate interests that have driven United States foreign and domestic policy, focusing on the sugar companies with interests in Hawaii at the time. One of the problems I need to address before anything else is the possible bias among sources, with history being written by the winners it is entirely likely that the sources I find are already tainted with a slant I must identify and either acknowledge or work around before presenting my project using the information.

Keeping my social location in mind, I approach the issue of describing the terms ‘native’ and ‘women’ in loose, flexible terms that can not adequately be described as binary concepts. I recognize that ‘native’ can include people who grew up in the area, though mostly applying it to people who identify as indigenous. The term ‘woman’ is problematic to say the least, though I am unable to reconcile that with the hundreds if not thousands of indigenous languages that did not have a gender binary and so somewhat restricted in how I am able to talk about it. With those things in mind, I will do the best that I can in discussing Queen Lili’uokalani and her struggle against colonialism and U.S. imperialism. I approach this subject as a student, and any incorrect terms are said entirely due to ignorance and not malice.  

Queen Lili’uokalani

Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawaii was the last queen before the forced annexation of Hawaii into the United States. As presented by the PBS program American Legacy in an episode called “Hawaii’s Last Queen,” her country was literally taken by force with her surrendering her crown at gunpoint on January 17, 1983. It was at that point that a provincial government led by white and wealthy sugar growers took control and petitioned the United States government for annexation (PBS).

            This happened because Lili’uokalani’s brother, King Kalakuau, left Hawaii to travel the world. It was at this point there was a smallpox epidemic in Hawaii, brought there by Chinese laborers brought in on the ships to work in the sugarcane fields. Queen Lili’uokalani closed the harbors to protect the Hawaiian people, angering the sugar business owners interested in the bottom line. After her brother died in 1981, Queen Lili’uokalani began working on a new constitution for Hawaii that would return power to the people of her country, instead of the United States government. It was at this point, however, that the United States government interfered in the market harming Hawaii’s sugar stock and sending Hawaii close to economic ruin. With the wealthy sugar company owners concerned for their economic livelihood, they became certain the only way they could maintain their wealth was for Hawaii to annex to the United States. That is, of course, what happened. To say this would be a coincidence would be more than naïve and foolish; to say this is exactly what has happened probably hundreds of times throughout the history of the United States is probably an understatement.

            The story of Queen Lili’uokalani is directly related to the history of the United States government fighting for the control over indigenous communities and societies. Indigenous women have dealt with much of this direct colonization, on the micro level of their own bodily colonization as well as that of their families and rest of societies. Queen Lili’uokalani was sent to exile for a time after she was forced to abdicate the throne, and spent the rest of her time exiled to the mainland of the United States of America. Not only did the United States government take away her birthright and title, they took physical control of her body and spirit by forcing her to leave her homeland for the rest of her days.

            Queen Lili’uokalani tried to use her status and the power given her to help her people. Whether closing the harbor to prevent outside diseases from wreaking havoc in her country or working in secret to write a new constitution, the Queen worked within the system that was supposed to be under her control in order to effect positive change for her community. It was not until that status was forcibly taken from her that she was unable to work to enact change on behalf of her people.

            Queen Lili’uokalani’s life is an important one to consider for the scholarly study of Native Women in Traditional and Contemporary Societies. It is her existence as the last queen of a country that was not only forcibly assimilated by the United States but adopted as its own that makes her such an important figure. As discussed by Andrea Smith in her book Conquest, sexual violence as a tool of genocide of a people has been something the indigenous populations of the world have been faced with since the start of colonization. While sexual violence was not used directly against Queen Lili’uokalani, it was used against her people as a way to possess their land and sovereignty. The role of Queen Lili’uokalani shifted after her country was forcibly taken from her, but she was not completely devoid of power. Much like the women discussed by Clara Sue Kidwell in the article “Indian Women as Cultural Mediators,” Queen Lili’uokalani tried to use her status to influence President McKinley and get her country back. While she was unable to do that, her role as intermediary between the two cultures can not be overlooked. The wishes of the sugar corporations could not be ignored, and so Queen Lili’uokalani was unable to make herself be heard.

All forms of violence were inflicted on the indigenous people of Hawaii, just like they were inflicted on the other indigenous peoples of North America. When diseases not found on Hawaii were brought there by the colonizing people, it became an opportunity to seize power utilizing racist and ethnocentric rhetoric. The colonizing peoples (missionaries, sugar plant company owners, etc.) set about painting the indigenous Hawaiian people as “unfit” to survive, and they used the outbreak of disease among the people as their reasoning. The reality that was portrayed to the rest of the United States that it was only “right” to take control of the land and its people; after all, it was for their own protection. RDK Herman writes about the fabrication of a leprosy “epidemic” that justified the forced segregation of much of the Hawaiian people, the separation of families that came along with it and the attempted destruction of a people using the idea that it was in “their best interest.”

The very direct role corporations played in the annexation of Hawaii is something that needs to be addressed. It was not the first time this has happened in the history of the United States of America, and most definitely not the last. In the past, there were the railroad companies and “Manifest Destiny”; currently there are the perceived reasons for recent foreign policy decisions made by the Bush administration. Examples such as these are when resources and corporate interests have played important parts in many parts of history of the United States. Hawaii belongs in the same category, where the interests of the people originally living there are completely disregarded in favor of corporate interests.

 

 

Analysis

            My research questions were answered with the research I did; the role of corporations in the take-over of Hawaii as well as the significance of race in the colonizing of the land. I did not know about the “leprosy epidemic” that was fabricated justify imprisonment of native Hawaiians, though in all honesty it does not much surprise me when those kinds of events are hidden from the country’s collective memory. This tells me that the systems of power are still working to subjugate the indigenous peoples of Hawaii as well as the other indigenous groups around the “United” States of America, no matter how people want to spin it. This puts the non-indigenous people interested in the issues of colonization and empire in an interesting position; when we “know” about what has happened in history as opposed to really knowing it is easy to blow off our responsibilities. However, after taking this course and doing this research and analysis I can no longer sit idly by and watch as colonization and empire continue to run rampant without trying to check it, in whatever capacity I may have. Even if it is as little as standing up to somebody making an ethnocentric generalization about indigenous peoples, that is still something I find myself compelled to do. As far as this project goes, supporting the Hawaiian sovereignty movement would be an important step in helping to undo the damage that was done a little more than a century ago. Perhaps the “island life” will be some kind of chapter in my future; all I know is I am unable to dismiss what I have learned, and hopefully some sort of positive change will come of it.

Works Cited

"Hawaii's Last Queen." The American Experience. Nar. Anna Deavere Smith. PBS. 1997.

 

Herman, RDK. “Out of sight, out of mind, out of power: leprosy, race and colonization in Hawai’i.” Journal of Historical Geography. 27:3. 2001. (319-337).

 

Kidwell, Clara Sue. “Indian Women as Cultural Mediators.” Native Women’s History in Eastern North America before 1900. United States: University of Nebraska Press, 2007.

 

Smith, Andrea. Conquest. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2005. 

Richard LaFortune's Visit at WSU

 I really enjoyed listening to Richard LaFortune talk, and am very happy he was able to come to Washington State University. Some of the points he made were things I had not heard before – like the fact that the term ‘berdache’ was actually a Persian word for a young male prostitute – though some of the concepts were ideas that we had discussed in class.

  One thing I thought particularly interesting was the history of changing the anthropological use of the term ‘berdache’ to describe Native American members of the queer community to one that has historical significance to the indigenous community. The term two-spirit was actually used in some Native communities, unlike the term berdache which was applied to them through explorers and other people through the West who applied it to anybody who did not meet the gender binary they were familiar with. After LaFortune explained the significance of the term I completely understood where the inappropriateness of the term comes from. I know we used the term in class, but we could probably agree that the anthropological community was right in deciding not to use that term anymore. 

Overall, I am extremely glad that he was here to speak to our community. As an Alaskan it was fun to listen to somebody from another region than my own, and as an advocate on behalf of queer rights I found the discussion on the difference between the Western idea of gay rights and the idea in Native American communities is completely different. As an example he talked about our idea of "gay marriage." He explained that it is not such a big deal for his community to have the right to marry, because as far as most of the cultures are concerned they have had gay marriage for over 10,000 years. So that is not where their fight is, and when queer rights groups try to connect with the Two-Spirit community without understanding that history it results in a disconnect that can not be ignored. 

Readings 10/13/08

“Strong Women Stories” Chapter 2

In this chapter, titled, “The Drum Keeps Beating: Recovering a Mohawk Identity,” by Laura Schwager the author goes through her personal journey to look up information about her family as well as her tribe. She talks about the struggle she has had personally connecting to her indigenous identity due to the fact that her mother was white, and Schwager did not always have positive experiences with her indigenous family.

“I feel deep within me that to deny my Native identity is to forego my responsibilities. By following my heart, I honor my self, I honor the heart of the Earth, those that came before me and those who are to com. That is the path I now walk on” (Schwager, 52). This article is about the struggles the author goes through trying to connect with her identity.

This is an interesting chapter for me to read, partly because of the real lack of cultural identity I have coming from such a myriad of countries and regions. I see this in my step-mom trying to reconnect with her Greek heritage, by tracing family and making trips back to visit family. Her father was the first one to leave the island in living memory of most of the people there, and he purposefully separated himself from his culture in an attempt to assimilate into American culture. My step-mom is doing what she can, though the lack of technology on her family’s island and misinformation can make it difficult. It is in that way that I connect to this reading, looking at my own family and the struggles they are going through to reconnect with their culture.

“Every Day is a Good Day,” Chapter 3

One issue brought up in this chapter was the issue of what exactly “American culture” was.

“Even with the dramatically changing racial composition of the United States, a preoccupation with European culture remains. Most of the Americans who want to assimilate Native Americans are hard-pressed to definte American culture. In the year 2000, one enthusiastic reporter described the finale of the voyeuristic television show Survivor as ‘the greatest cultural event since Armstrong landed on the Moon’” (Mankiller, 44).

Mankiller brings up a good point. In the rush to “assimilate” Native Americans there was never discussion about what the culture they were supposed to be “assimilating” into was. The “culture” as we think of it varies depending on the region of the country; sometimes each town in an area is different than another. That is something not many people think about, but it is a very true question to ask. That could be why the “American” society does not understand why people have such a fierce connection to their culture, and the history that comes with it. Not understanding something makes it easier to dismiss and ignore, or want to wipe out entirely. Perhaps if we understood what it would be like to have such a strong cultural connection it would be easier to relate to the struggles the indigenous communities across the world have to deal with. 

Readings 10/8/08

“Every Day is a Good Day” Chapters 1, 2

These chapters are stories about the lives of Native American women, as told from their perspectives. It is a great collection of stories, vital to understanding what it is like to be a indigenous woman in contemporary society.

One quote that was interesting for me was the one that went, “Outsiders are always admonishing Native women to forget about history and the past, but history is woven into the very fabric of their daily lives” (“Harvest Moon”, 6). To me this quote illustrates the fact that there is still a difference between cultures that need to be respected. Though the stories are about living between cultures and finding a comfortable zone in between the two, with the zone changing depending on the person who finds themselves in that situation.

The other section on ceremony was an interesting look at how the religions of the Native women impact their lives, for those who practice their cultural religion and the others who practice other Western religions instead. It is an interesting look at the cultural appropriation on the part of outsiders who mean well, and the ways communities see the world through their culture in a way different from most other cultures in North America. What I thought was interesting was that they noted how people were separated from their culture as they came here for various reasons, and with that lost their connection to the land their respective cultures had. While there have been a few “ancient cultures” such as the Chinese who have been able to maintain their cultural identity with their migration, as noted on page 14, for the most part people lost their ancestral lands, culture and therefore their identity.

“Strong Women Stories” Introduction, Chapter 1

“For Native women, finding our voices is also about articulating the circumstances we encounter as we work to bring about social change” (Lawrence, 17).   

That quote summarizes this book, which is a collection of stories and writings about life and experiences the authors have lived through. In the first chapter, called “Where the Spirits Live: Women Rebuilidng a Non-Status Mi’Kmaq Community” by Gertie Mai Muise one of the most striking sentences I noticed was right at the beginning when it stated, “Violence against [us women] at home remains commonplace and socially accepted, yet there’s not a single man who would intentionally tempt a Mi’kmaq woman’s scorn” (Muise, 25). It is something people in that community have to deal with, and so they talk about it in their stories. That violence may be ugly, but it is reality and so they try to deal with it in their way.

That is what I liked about the story. The author alternates between telling the history of her people in addition to how things are in the present day as they try to gain sovereignty and recognition from the government. 

Readings 10/1/08

Changing Ones, Chapter 4 “Warrior Women and Warrior Chiefs”

This chapter looks at the roles attributed to Native women in different societies, from the role of mother to the issue of lesbianism in different cultures. It also looks at female berdaches, and while I discuss how problematic that term is in my description of Richard LaFortune’s visit it is the term the author uses and so I will continue to use it in this post. Two of the other categories the author looks at are Indian Queens and Women Warriors, in addition to Alternative Genders.

One thing that I think is interesting to note is how the author makes sure to mention how it is difficult to say what is ‘normal’ and what is not in the cultures that were in the midst of being drastically changed due to violence and colonization. As described by the author, in the instance of the Plains tribes, “…as one male leader after another fell before the advancing wave of violence, women occasionally stepped in to fill the breach” (Roscoe, 76).

I feel like this is an important thing for the author to note. By the time the West – our primary source of information (albeit biased) on Native societies – was making contact with Native communities it was the same time violence was being inflicted upon them, making the information gathered about them tainted at best. Add in to that the ethnocentric view most observers had and any observations made about societies definitely have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Dissident Women, “Key Women’s Documents”

This section is a variety of important documents for women, as the title of the chapter suggests. Included in this chapter are ‘Women’s Revolutionary Law’, ‘Women’s Rights in Our Traditions and Customs’, ‘Comandanta Esther: Speech before the Mexican Congress’, and ‘International Day of the Rebel Woman’. The numerous articles are information about the Zapatista women, in their own words. It is a good primer before reading further in the book, to see what perspective the women are coming from.

One thing I found extremely interesting was in the ‘Women’s Revolutionary Law,’ when the women state, “Men want many children because they don’t think, they don’t care. They don’t feel the pain of pregnancy, of childbirth, of raising and feeding children. This is how we are killing ourselves, how we are forcing ourselves to die” (“Dissident Women”, 7). What I liked about this section was that it is an example of how unequivocally independent the women are, distinguishing themselves from men in a way that makes them equals but acknowledges the difficulties that can come between the genders.

Overall the words expressed in this section are strong, independent and uniform as they speak for their movement and the people their movement represents. It is powerful to read their own words, and necessary before passing any judgments on the EZLN and what they stand for. 

Readings 9/29/08

"Many Tender Ties" Chapter 2 and 3
by Sylvia Van Kirk

These chapters were about Native American women and their role in the fur-trading business in Western Canada. Chapter 2 was about the marriages, or partnerships, that occurred between the men of the trade company and the Native women. The Third chapter was about the role the women played in the business itself. As far as interesting quotes go, in the second chapter when Van Kirk says,

"It did not take the officers of the Hudson's Bay Company long to realize that marriage to the daughter of a leading hunter or chief could secure not only the bountiful hunt of the father-in-law but that of his relations as well" (Van Kirk, 29).

This quote - and indeed, the whole chapter - makes it sound like the only people benefiting from this partnership was the trade company. The indigenous community must also have seen some kind of benefit from this partnership, such as a trade partner with something unique to the area or some other kind of bonus that we can not see from our perspective. It is interesting to me that this arrangement is portrayed as beneficial only to the trade company, not to the communities they were trading with. I attribute some of this to the perspective of the author, but also one of the views we have of history where the indigenous communities were merely tools used by the settling peoples to better themselves.

This view of history is continued in the third chapter, where this quote comes from:

"Both companies used women as interpreters to communicate with tribes of the rich Lake Athabasca region" (Van Kirk, 65).

To me, the word 'used' is key in that sentence. It implies no will or motivation on the part of the women, rather that they were no better than inanimate objects to be used when necessary by the companies. There is no way we can know whether the women wanted to be 'used' as interpreters or not, or what they thought of their situations. To use that kind of language requires a few key assumptions about the women, their culture and their position in the company itself, assumptions I do not think the author was prepared to make. While we may never know what the women thought, or what propelled them into the roles detailed in this book, it is a mistake to impose our suppositions on their lives. It does a disservice to history, and the memory of the women and their cultures.

Readings 9/22/08

"Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide" by Andrea Smith

Chapter One: Sexual Violence as a Tool of Genocide

This article was extremely difficult for me to read. I have a habit of putting my overactive imagination to work while reading to bring me into the story the author is trying to get across, which in this situation was very emotional for me. The extremely vivid pictures painted by the authors - and the sources she uses - were more than effective in illustrating how brutal the colonizing forces were in their abuse of women as a way to complete their take-over of everything else. It is one thing to "know" about the violence inflicted on entire populations, and another to be confronted with it. It was extremely powerful, and I am glad the author was that up front with her audience.

I learned a lot in this reading. One of the most astonishing to me was the quote on page 19, that said, "Furthermore, 70 percent of tribes did not practice war at all. For those that did engage in war, the intent was generally not to annihilate the enemy, but to accrue honor through bravery" (Smith, 19). I feel like that is one misconception people have about the history of Native Americans; they feel like the groups fought between each other all the time, so what's the difference between that and what the settlers did? The answer is immense and complicated, which I have a problem explaining to people who have this mindset. The idea of fighting for honor, not for some kind of immediate monetary gain (or some other kind of advantage) is something we do not really have in our society where there is always something we want, they have, etc. Also, the idea that there were hundreds (if not thousands) different groups and so cannot be so easily put into the "they" category is difficult for some people to comprehend.

Changing Ones, Chapter One and Two

Will Roscoe

These chapters set up the idea of gender and sexuality as we see them for what they are; they are socially constructed by the culture and people in that culture. Therefore, the idea that things have always been the way they are now is not only arrogant, it is blatantly untrue. No matter how revisionist our history books, people who we would call transgender (in the Native community two-spirit or some other term) have existed all over North America in practically every society that Western society documented. In many cultures, the people settlers and explorers called berdaches (which are now referred to as two-spirit) were seen in many cultures as either nothing out of the ordinary (and by that I mean it was not unusual for villages or families to have two-spirit people in their community) or very special people full of power, sometimes shamans or in other community-respected positions of power.

The pictures in the book were fastinating, especially the one on page 29 featuring Osh-Tisch. Not only is that section of the book a particularly interesting view into the life of a two-spirit member of the Native community, I love how the story is from the 1900's. One thing I feel people do with this kind of subject is relegate it to the past, which creates this invisibility around the Native community today that is hard to break through. This goes double for the Native queer community, which is alienated from society both because of their ethnic idendity as well as their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. It is time to discard the notion of the two-spirit as an antiquated part of North American, but instead an aspect of history that has carried into the 21st century, with it its own set of challenges and joys to be recongized for what they are today, not how we saw them 200 years ago.