July 30, 2011

Red Shirt vs. Gover

An excerpt from Steve Russell’s new book, Sequoyah Rising:The Cherokee were not the only Indian peoples seduced by the ideology of color prejudice. Some kind of nadir was reached in 2002 by a Lakota—if not of racism, then of shortsightedness. Author and former adjunct professor at Connecticut College Delphine Red Shirt, writing in the Hartford Courant in 2002, opined that she was offended by Connecticut’s definition of “Indian”:

Why? Because I am an Indian. I grew up Indian, look Indian, even speak Indian. So it offends me to come east and to see how “Indian” is defined in this state that I now call home.

What offends me? That on the outside (where it counts in America’s racially conscious society), Indians in Connecticut do not appear Indian. In fact, the Indians in Connecticut look more like they come from European or African stock. When I see them, whether they are Pequot, Mohegan, Paugussett, Paucatuck or Schaghticoke, I want to say, “These are not Indians.” But I’ve kept quiet.

I can’t stay quiet any longer. These are not Indians.…

There are no remnants left of the Indigenous Peoples that had proudly lived in Connecticut. What is here is all legally created. The blood is gone.
And:Kevin Gover, the Pawnee former assistant secretary for Indian Affairs on whose watch during the Clinton Administration some of the objects of Red Shirt’s dudgeon were recognized, replied in the pages of Indian Country Today:

As I understand her position, Connecticut Indians are not Indians because they do not look like her, do not act like her, do not speak like her, do not—well, you get the picture. (They also do not have cool names like hers, but she forgot to mention that.) Expect to see Ms. Red Shirt trotted out every time some white people want to say something ugly about Indian people but dare not do so because they would be labeled as racists.

I think we brown-skinned, black-haired Indians had better be careful about what we say about New England Indians. There are fewer and fewer full-bloods among us. If being Indian means looking a certain way, then most tribes are only two or three generations from extermination.

The New England Indians did what they had to do to survive. They intermarried and accommodated the overwhelming presence of non-Indians. Yet they persevered and maintained themselves, some of them, as distinct social, political and cultural communities. Are they the same as the Indians who greeted the English and Dutch settlers in the 17th century? Of course not. But then few if any tribes closely resemble their pre-Columbian ancestors.
Comment:  I reported on Red Shirt's column when she wrote it in December 2002. I included the responses of Kevin Gover, Steve Russell, and others. As you can see for yourself, they're still right and she's still wrong.

For more on tribal identity, see Tribes Need Citizenship Tests and "Minimal Bloods" = Greedy White People?

Below:  Kevin Gover.


Anonymous said...

I first thought this was about Wambli Sina Win, which is Lakota for Woman Who Uses Online Name Generator.

Shadow Wolf said...

Actually, I don't even call myself "Indian" even if I am a full blooded Native American, an enrolled member of the Crow Tribe. As a matter of fact, "Indians" are an ethnic group of people originated in the country of India. And certainly I'm not from India.

In fact, what I find offensive is why we are called "Indians" when we are in fact Native people as in Indigenous. Why do these supposed "Indians" prefer to be called by a racist mistaken misonmer given to us by some tyrannical mass murderer who discovered the Americas in circa 1492????

Unless of course, Connecticut is talking about people from India. The term "Indian" all by it's itty-bitty self does not become clear on the basis of its own defination.

Rob said...

I've addressed the issue of what Indians call themselves many times. For instance, in:

"Indian" term dying out?
"American Indian" vs. "Native American"

Short answer: "Indian" is the term most Indians prefer.